Humans have very limited ability to understand deep time or larger concepts, such as how big the universe is. We need examples even to begin to understand: Alpha Centauri is the closest star system at 4.37 light-years from our Sun, or travelling at 670,616,629 miles per hour for 4 years to get there. Can you really grab 670 million miles per hour for 1 day? If 'reality' is longer than a reasonable period of time... try staying present for an hour without having your thoughts wander... human's can't go there. We don't see it so it doesn't exist.
Our lifestyle of comforts will have to be seriously compromised to deal with climate change because of the radical changes now necessary to save ourselves, so you begin to see the scope of the problem. Our human limitations don't address the way specialized interests (ie money,power and privilege) lobby to keep the status quo, easily manipulating our limitations into believing whatever they want us to believe, i.e. no problem here. Go back home, we have you covered.
Our brains just can't do it. In other words, for those of us who do believe in science and understand how serious this problem is will never convince enough people that don't believe it, and that it probably will end life on earth as we know it.
It's so ironic; many of these people that don't believe in global warming believe enough in science that they will fly in a plane. But global warming? Light years away, if at all.
24
You can believe these scientists aren't exaggerating just to get more government grant money when beach property in Florida tanks, Gold-Coast like resorts proliferate along the magnificent white sandy beaches along the south shore of Lake Superior, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan becomes the prime winter destination of America's snowbirds.
1
The water that we frogs are in is heating up.
17
So now the extremely ignorant or stupidly obtuse conservatives will continue to not believe in science despite every bit of knowledge we have about this most serious issue, all in the grab for more profits.
5
The photo of the dead coral reef off of Indonesia may be misleading. The dead corals, which appear to be broken, look to be the result of fishing using dynamite, a common practice in the Indonesia archipelago in the past. Ive seen a number of such ‘coral graveyards’ while diving off of Lombok.
4
At this rate we're toast. We are not prepared to do what is necessary to stop this. On the other hand, Republicans will be most affected and the country will turn into California: Democrats everywhere. It will then be up to us to make hard choices and we will do it. We've had enough of fools.
4
Our multinational research network is at the forefront of ocean-climate research with scientists from the US Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru and Uruguay. They've assessed the impact of climate variability and change on the Patagonia and South Brazil Large Marine Ecosystems at different spatial scales in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean (SAO), a major ‘hotspot’ of climate change where the rate of warming is several times greater than the global average. This region presents high productivity and exceptional biodiversity, making its conservation of utmost importance. However, their ecosystem services are being increasingly affected by a range of drivers that span a spectrum of scales from pulse perturbations with transitory and localized effects (e.g. intraseasonal variability and marine heat waves) to prolonged perturbations of global reach (e.g., global warming and sea-level rise). Several drivers acting simultaneously are impairing the capacity of ecosystems to provide food, protect livelihoods, maintain water quality, and recover from environmental stress. Ocean currents and species have no geopolitical boundaries, and therefore the in-depth understanding of processes required to project the future status of the SAO can only be achieved with international cooperation, technology transfer, and improving the capacity of countries to conduct collaborative, regional ocean observation and monitoring. @ioneanderson @IAI_News www.iai.int
5
Although not directly related to oceans, but I've traveled to Greenland (for a grant to photograph), and saw the changes happening there to the tiny farming communities in the south, and retreating glaciers. The melting water then drains into the ocean, which impacts us all.
22
@Steve Giovinco, The massive amounts of fresh water glacial melt being added to the sea water is not a positive. Researchers are unsure what the long term results may incur.
2
@Steve Giovinco what happened to the 2 miles of glaciers on top of much of North America and Europe a mere 10000 to 15000 years ago?
first it is not massive, it is trivial . second glaciers melt during interglacial warm periods
What really curls my toes is what will happen after the Arctic melts.
The decrease in Arctic reflectivity is scary enough in itself to be sure.
But what about the ensuing increase in water temperatures once the latent heat of fusion is no longer holding them steady?
This will eventually lead to changes in global ocean circulation that will cause major and likely unsurvivable changes to the ecosystems that we, and the majority of lifeforms on Earth, evolved to inhabit.
There will be no “figuring it out” as some commenters have pluckily suggested.
44
@(not That) Dolly
I have a similar concern about the thawing of the Arctic permafrost and the millions of tons of emissions that will result. I fear an exponential rise in temperature from the non-stop release of methane even if we totally shut down the combustion of fossil fuels that I doubt would be survivable for our species and the species that make up our food supply.
That is why I support the acceleration of non-fossil energy sources like capturing the Sun's energy in space to beam to the Earth. See: "Spaceship Earth" and "Silent Earth" by Franklin Medalist, Dr. James Powell, the inventor of Superconducting Maglev transport for passengers and freight, and one of the inventors of StarTram, an engineering concept for very cheap launch of payload to space orbit (about 1% of chemical rocket cost). Powell has also proposed a design for a CO2 atmosphere scrubber that should be entered into the competition with other design to remove the backlog of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I also believe we should start measuring the Arctic greenhouse gas emissions. So we at least have some idea to how long we have left.
4
@(not That) Dolly
Relatively little would happen to the global climate picture if the artic melts, aside, of course, to its very disastrous effects on the fauna. Loss in solar reflectivity on the global scale would also be small due to the low angle of solar radiation in the artic and its relatively small size. Furthermore melting of the ice, per-se, will have no effect on sea level rise, as the ice is already floating on the artic ocean. What will be catastrophic is the accompanying melting of the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. Even a partial melting would produce sea level rises in the range of tens of meters and potentially also cause substantial changes in the world's ocean currents affecting the climate and ecosystems, as you indicated.
7
Human activity has become a cancer on the earth. This home of ours, this third rock from the sun, is a 4.5 billion year old living ecosystem, and perhaps knows a thing or two about how to survive. If humans are the problem, then our very planet will find ways to eschew us. In some form, the planet will survive, but humans will not--at least not in the manner we have been living.
62
The second paragraph is all we need to know to not read further, that also invalidates the study and conclusion. It states that a mere 5 years ago the UN's IPCC underestimated the rate of ocean warming by 40%. If they were so wrong then, why should anyone have any confidence in this new estimate, or anything that is published on this very complicated, and not very well understood topic? Climate and the earth's ability to maintain homeostasis is not even close to being understood. When I heard that a "climate model" developed by Cornell University (my alma mater) is trying to incorporate econometric model output to project human activity and CO2 emissions, I said to myself, what a waste of money, and climate models truly are no longer representative of science. The fact that this study totally rejects the well understood and quantified laws of thermodynamics is also a startling oversight by the "scientists" that conducted and peer reviewed this nonsense.
19
@bob - I'm sure glad you straightened this out for us.
Just because we add greenhouse gases based on buying and burning various fuels, it sure wouldn't make sense to include economic indicators into models predicting future emissions.
It's not like emissions drop during economic contractions like the recession 10 years ago. I mean, you're right - why would someone think sharply lower demand for manufactured products, and less driving as unemployed folks stay home would have an impact on fuel consumption and resulting emissions?
Without your common sense protecting us, people might notice that the article is about how climate models used for the IPCC report some years ago were saying oceans were warming faster than observations back then indicated, but that new measurements confirm, observationally, what the models were telling us. Thanks so much.
24
@bob: Undersea drone technology has dramatically improved data collection in recent years.
10
@b fagan your extreme lack of knowledge is noted, old sport.
6
I am definitely on the pessimistic side of the global warming issue. The efforts promised at the Paris agreement, and reasserted last year in Warsaw, are at best insufficient based on 1) its "voluntary" nature without punitive pressure, as well as the reticence of developed countries in aiding developing and underdeveloped countries in reaching low carbon content energy consumption. 2) The global energy needs are projected to increase by 28% over present usage by 2040, a mere 21 years away, with most of that growth concentrated in Asia, Middle East and Africa (as per US Energy Information Association). To satisfy this future demand, coal is predicted to stay at its present consumption level, but with oil and natural gas rising and maintaining their lead position to 2040 and beyond. Renewables are projected to increase to about 20% in the total energy mix. The US presently generates less than 10% of its energy demand by solar/wind, which is expected to increase in coming years. We and other advanced economies can afford more expensive technologies, but not so most of the rest of the world, who will have to rely predominantly on fossil fuels. The net result is that projection for 2040 indicate a larger use of fossil fuels than used today, thus maintaining or surpassing the release of green house gases. The removal of CO2 (sequestration) on an effective scale is economically and practically untenable at present and most likely for many decades ahead.
The US
9
@Rudy Ludeke: Another one trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions are already locked into the design lifetime of existing infrastructure and vehicles over the next 25 years.
1
@Rudy Ludeke I think you're forgetting that we get a ton of power from dams and that is renewable so don't state incorrect statistics.
Yes, global warning is a serious concern. However, truth is that a global nuclear holocaust is a true disaster which will murder 7.6 billion humans currently on earth.
On Sept. 24, 1996, the United States and the world's other major nuclear powers signed a treaty to end all testing and development of nuclear weapons. Do you believe all nations having nuclear capabilities are being good boys and girls?
2
@manoflamancha: Kim Jong Un says North Korea will give up nuclear weapons at a rate proportional to the size of its arsenal to that of the US.
1
We are rapidly losing the valuable food fish like salmon from the North American west coast. Because those feed the orcas (killer whales), grizzly bears, eagles, and when they're spawned out, the trees of the western rainforests of Washington State, British Columbia and Alaska, the costs, both financial and environmental, are incalculable. Meanwhile, the Pacific as far north as Alaska, is filling up with jelly fish and alien tropical species. This isn't some long range prediction; this is today's reality. BC is belatedly considering a Fraser River gill net ban because of the threat of extinction of sturgeon and the precipitous decline in salmon stocks, particularly chinook ("Springs", "Kings"). Meanwhile, tropical seas are rapidly becoming sludgy soups, dead zones. I'll never go back to Hawaii. Most of the beautiful coral and wonderful colourful fish is gone. Reefs have been destroyed by warming, ocean acidification from C02 and runoff from agriculture and urban development. The same holds true for much of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, with potentially devastating effects for mainland Queensland because the reef, until its recent collapse, protected the land from the raging open ocean. Meanwhile, US CO2 output is rapidly rising (again), conservation of fuel and electricity in the US has ground to a halt with cheap prices under the Trump administration driving up use, and regulatory changes are favouring emitters. It is all so sad.
6
But God promised he wouldn't ever, ever flood the earth again after Noah's flood.
@Andrew - examine the contract. I believe the promise wouldn't be violated until the rains went beyond 40 days and 39 nights.
1
I hope "Fox and Friends" does a piece on this, reflecting appropriate concern, so the so-called president will become aware that his administration is not helping the matter. (Fat chance.)
4
"Ahhhhh, remember oceans, birds, being outside" --
1
Sooo glad not to have children, what a terrible life they would have.
4
@Allyson
Agreed: Made the same decision decades ago...
If one goes to work Monday--Friday...and then, for relief and relaxation on Saturday decides to make waffles and contemplate world matters...during that brief week, another million people have been added to the planet. (and that is a net increase)
Many people think such rapid changes are not a problem...at all...forever.
2
@Allyson: No fetus has ever given informed consent to be born. I could have done without the spectacle of Donald Trump rampant.
2
Trump is a colossal road block to efforts to lessen greenhouse gases. But since the Paris accords greenhouse gases have continued to rise. Coal is still encouraged for development of third world economies. China sells coal fired electricity plants in Africa. There are efforts in state gov'ts in the US to increase renewable energy sources. But the use of hydrocarbons is still increasing. The oil industry still tries to debunk climate change warnings.
I agree with the points made, but I am curious about Dr. Zanna's statement in the 2nd-to-last paragraph that "sea level will be different in different places depending on the warming." It has been said that water seeks its own level, and I expect the warming expansion is slow enough for the water level to equalize worldwide.
2
@Brian: The Earth spins. Angular momentum generates Coriolis forces and pile-up of water against continental barriers.
3
@Brian - along with the detail Steve mentions, there are other effects that prevent the entire global ocean from being at the exact same "sea level".
El Niño/La Niña events shift winds so more water is pushed across the surface of the affected area in the Pacific towards the western or eastern side - like blowing across the top of a cup of coffee, stop blowing and the water flattens back down again.
Gravity shifts as ice sheets melt, so while sea level increases overall from the runoff, local seas near the shrinking ice cap actually lower a tiny bit, too, since gravity isn't pulling towards the huge mass of ice.
There are other effects - the Gulf Stream (which is partly a result of the Coriolis effect Steve mentioned) moves large amounts of warmed (expanded) water north along our coast and then out to the North Atlantic where it cools and sinks.
Fresher water running off of Greenland could interfere with the cooling/sinking process, which would slow the Gulf Stream. One result? The warmer water would spread towards our shore, so sea level rise would be accelerated there.
A good paper that explains some of the factors that make the US East Coast a sea-level-rise hotspot is here, and is open-access.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057952
2
I’m not surprised. Climate scientists have taken very optimistic / low assumptions to get the broadest possible acceptance of their analyses. No serious scientist wants to be labeled as an alarmist or activist, and climate science has been under constant attack.
The frequent occurrence of previously highly unusual weather events (hurricane flooding, wildfires, summer temps in Europe/Australia, North Pole melting etc.) already raised the suspicion that climate change was a lot worse than previously calculated. Anyone who has been paying attention is not surprised by this news.
Cities like London, Copenhagen and Zurich have been the driving force behind change in Europe (low emission zones, replacing traffic with biking lanes and wider sidewalks, more green, more recycling, insulation etc.)
Democratic Americans hide behind Trump as an excuse whilst our blue cities are getting worse (infested by Uber/Lyft cars) instead of better.
Environment and climate are not even a topic of discussion in the mayoral race here in Chicago...
5
I'm wondering - what is the impact of pesticide run-off, sewage, plastics, etc. on the oceans. As third world countries develop and expand, and the oceans around them become their dumping ground, what is the impact? CO2 is one small part of the equation. Population growth in countries with little interest in regulation, or spending on caring for their pollution, is the root cause. CO2 is but a symptom. So sad that the politicians and governments and media continue to ignore the elephant in the room. Of course, soon we won't have any elephants.
1
We are faced with an existential question. Are the lives of some 63 million Republicans more valuable than the fate of the entire planet? Should all human achievement in literature, music, philosophy, art, space exploration, architecture, poetry, medicine, physics, biology and so much more be flushed down the toilet because Republicans have so-called "rights" which are being used to render the planet inhospitable to life? At what point do these enemies of humankind forfeit their rights to the greater imperative of saving the future of life on earth?
We can have Republicans or a liveable planet. We can NOT have both. Period.
7
What can YOU do about climate change? Vote.
5
@Robert Migliori For whom? Chicago has always been Democratic, but we still have 6 lanes of stinky traffic as our lakefront, we still have to wait minutes on every block of our main tiny sidewalked shopping street to let cars through, biking lanes are a lethal joke with buses and traffic weaving in and out of them, too many Uber and Lyft cars (they are in front of your house before you can grab your coat), we don't have a low emission zone as cars are more important than residents, noisy and stinky buses remind me of those in the 1990s Europe, etc. etc.
3
A lot more than that - even getting off meat would be a huge help. Looking at this list and see what you can impact on it: https://www.drawdown.org/
1
@Robert Migliori
Support the mayor of NYC for a 3rd term:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/nyregion/battling-climate-change-from-the-back-seat-of-an-suv.html
They call Fort Lauderdale the Venice of America. We're all learning gondola songs here.
2
The mostly white evangelicals have sold out their grandchildren in the election of an administration that could care less about the planet. Its all about maximizing gain for the moment.
6
By 2100? That's plenty of time for the 1% to stockpile food in their not so secret mouton top chalets.
1
Thing is, what do the captains of the fossil fuel industry think will happen to their own children and grandchildren if their ravenous pursuit oftoday's profit continues? Will they live in climate controlled environments like Howard Hughes did? What a wonderful life for them. I'm just sayin'. But the Heck with them, what about the rest of us? It's time we eject climate change deniers from our lives, stating with Trump.
4
In the 4.5billion years of earths history we homo sapians are the first living life forms to change earths macro environment. Previously caused by volcanic eruption, our burning of fossil fuels for 200 years have recreated the Co2 release of similar consequence. The Oceans absorb the majority of the Co2, it takes thousands of years to return to normal and continue to heat up even after the Co2 is reduced. Our species click of a button mentality, of delayed world wide unification on action that mother earth will have the last word lasting hundreds of generations can only lead to one outcome.
1
Everyone needs to support the fledgling efforts now underway in he House and Senate for the Green New Deal.
2
What a perfect time to have a national leader who denies science, lies as he breathes, constructs his own “realities”, and throws tantrums whenever he’s challenged with facts.
Yup, “build that wall”, indeed.
2
If President Trump is tooling around in search of a crisis here's one.
2
The last time one of these apocalyptic stories emerged, it took about a day for an armchair factchecker to point out a huge math error that undercut the entire premise of the story.
Here's a wager that these latest doomsday scenarios, produced by advocates, prove to be grossly overstated, too. Essentially every prediction the hysterics have ever made has had to be backtracked, because reality doesn't read Science.
That said, there is certainly little downside to scaling back greenhouse emissions, not just collectively, but individually. Those who worry about this sort of thing should, obviously, use NO fossil fuels, not drive, not fly, not heat or cook with gas, etc. After all, if climate change is an existential threat, it will not do to be jetting all over the world to discuss it. In the immortal words of the mantra of our last existential crisis, "Is This Trip Really Necessary"?
And they should be demanding that immediate plans be made for the construction of lot of nukes and lots of dams. It also will not do to rely on expensive toys like wind and solar, nor to contend that the solution is for billions of people to freeze in the dark.
1
@Brenda
A wall between Mexico-US will stop climate change!
@Brenda
"The last time one of these apocalyptic stories emerged...."
"Essentially every prediction the hysterics have ever made has had to be backtracked, because reality doesn't read Science...."
What do you consider "hysterical" and "apocalyptic?"
The article is just a refinement of accurate projections from past science.
The projections from decades ago from Hansen and Broecker have been accurate. The IPCC projections are all within the uncertainties with the ocean levels rising at the high end of projections. The only real failure is that arctic sea ice is melting faster than projections....so, that is a problem of being too conservative.
The goal should be to reduce dependence on fossil fuels over a five to 10 decade time period...and essentially nothing is getting done. But fossil fuels will not be viable for more than about five decades completely independent of climate issues. It is likely too late and there will be a bunch of pain.
4
My mate and I are arguing about the article's last sentence. He says it should be the lead sentence with explanation. I say all my reading tells me it's false optimism where we imperfect humans are concerned. But he's right--it should be explained.
2
It's counter intuitive, but there is empirical evidence (like climate change deniers) that resistance to understanding a threat grows with its proximity --- until it is too late. "We have met the enemy and they are us."
6
Who's to say the most recent analysis is accurate? The fact that the recent analysis and the one five years ago vary so much says only one thing: The "science" behind the analyses is unreliable. Wonder what an analysis five years from now will show.
1
@GMoore yes, unreliable but the best there is. Think of it like the weather forecast, not always right but most people pay attention
2
It seems like a few months ago, I read an article about how the oceans are warming faster than previously thought.
Was that previous article a prediction of the results of the analysis referenced in this article? Or, does this latest study postulate that the oceans are warming faster than the recently previously discovered faster rate that previously thought?
Who knew medical care (for the planet) could be so complicated? (Rhetorical, take a lap)
Anyone paying the slightest attention has known about global warming, the climate crisis, whatever you want to call it since at least the 1980's. By the 1990's it was undeniable. Yet, in 2000 the US (arguably) elected an oil man to be President, and in 2016 we (arguably) elected a reality TV character, both of whom severely undermined effort to do anything about carbon emissions.
As our understanding of climate change has grown exponentially, Trump's undermining of efforts to address it has also grown exponentially. Now we are careening toward disaster.
What did we expect? What will it take for us to learn?
3
The implications of this 40% increase are dire. If we had only a very brief window of opportunity to intervene before, it is now far shorter.
This is your National Emergency Mr. Trump! If you want to save the USA, wake up and smell the CO2!
Slowing climate change is, overwhelmingly, the highest priority for mankind to address, and thus far, it has done so very haltingly.
Despite warnings and good intentions, emissions continue to increase, year after year. They must be reduced by 50% per decade, from now until 2050, if we want civilization, as we know it, to last beyond about 2060-2100.
Fossil fuel to green power conversion can be done with existing technology, we just need to act urgently, or it will, tragically, be too late.
The world can become a far better place, than the one we are inexoribly headed for, but only if we manifest the will to act, now!.
2
And here we are denying these climate change effects, and reversing conservation efforts, which would exacerbate these results!
Even when another paper retracted it's claim a few months ago due to incorrect math, it seemed obvious that the warming was happening faster than anticipated.
Please notice the new articles on Thwaites Glacier (Wired) and see the mention of how hard it is to model how glaciers will melt... it is very very hard.
The news continues to take our breath away as all as all hope, yet nothing significant is being done by enough people to make a difference. What will it take? At this point, we need to prepare ourselves for the worst. While nature may have some surprises we must be realistic that this cannot be stopped. We need to mentally prepare people for what is coming soon.
3
"In the new analysis, Mr. Hausfather and his colleagues assessed three recent studies that better accounted for the older instrument biases. The results converged at an estimate of ocean warming that was higher than that of the 2014 United Nations report and more in line with the climate models."
The climate models, which, if they were Sales forecasts, would have left our warehouses and distribution centers stuffed to the gills with inventory, and the Head of Sales would have been fired long ago, and of which every single one of them was biased inaccurately to the high side, were the benchmark against which the historical data adjustments were made.
It was easier to adjust the historical data to make the models look right than it was to create an accurate model.
I suppose engineering results could be a form of science if you squint your eyes.
Lazy. Dishonest.
3
“As the ocean heats up, it’s driving fish into new places, and we’re already seeing that that’s driving conflict between countries,” he [Dr. Pinsky] said. “It’s spilling over far beyond just fish, it’s turned into trade wars. It’s turned into diplomatic disputes. It’s led to a breakdown in international relations in some cases.”
The warming of the earth will not by itself kill off human beings.
However, as Dr. Pinsky notes, the various pressures on trade and diplomacy being generated by a changing ocean will inevitably pit interest groups -- especially nations -- against one another.
Yes, the global community (if indeed we can agree such a community exists) needs to limit global warming.
However, the global community also needs come to a consensus about how to adapt to the changing climate and how to respond with justice and generosity to the numerous human crises climate change is already causing and will cause in the near future.
Establishing protocols among nations for cooperation and justice is an even more time sensitive matter. Abatement is a long term issue whereas climate driven calamities are immediate and will require a wise and judicious handling.
As Dr. Pinsky notes, we already have climate-driven conflicts between countries.
Conflict is our specialty. It is baked into our history and perhaps our DNA.
Justice wisely dispensed does not happen as easily.
2
I truly find it troubling that such dire predications are made when inaccurate measurements, revised estimates, and found mistakes are almost always accompanying any kind of climate article.
I've recently been presented evidence (very sound, sane presentations I might add) about man's effect on the climate. In trying to research against the propositions posed, I find nothing but '*', revised estimates, missed targets, and 'ranges' that, it appears, most climate scientists normally rest on the extreme, typically to generate the headlines.
I really have to say, as a sector of science, climate science is incredibly frustrating.
3
@adam
Climate science is applied science. Science will always require revisions as new data and new methods become available. For climate science, this yields more accurate results and projections. Refinements have not changed the basic science...just reduced the uncertainty as the methods have improved.
Example: Argo float have provided recent data on the oceans much more accurately than past measurements or proxies. Here's how the changes have progressed....and uncertainty reduced.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean_temperature_part1.html
This is typical of any type of engineered or applied science system...think of the first cell phones compared to what we use now. Or surgery methods...etc. Updates will keep happening.
6
@adam The observational data supports this. They know that certain fish species are moving north because of warming waters. They know that coral reefs are dying because of temperatures and chemistry changes. What else do we need to see to realize that we are facing a major problem?
2
If we survive, I can't fathom how history will record this period. How will it evaluate the world's refusal to acknowledge an overwhelming plethora of scientific evidence? Religion and politics can't explain science denial. We have to be far beyond the Middle Age belief that religious tenets override scientific findings. Is it still heresy to believe in climate change?
2
Rather than looking in the mirror and taking a good look at their life style as being part of the problem, people, as always, wish to blame others for whats going on!
Once again the NYtimes fails to point out that 1/3 of the fish coming out of the ocean are being fed to land farmed animals like pigs and cows. Over fishing could be alleviated if we advocated for the only sensible solution; veganism. The amount of methane gas released from cows burps, not to mention the massive waste of resources, is greatly contributing to climate change.
3
The frog in the pot actually reaches out and turns up the heat, then looks for somewhere else to place the blame. Amazing!
4
Trump and the GOP say there is no such thing as global warming and it is all false news, so it must be true, right? when will our leaders get their heads out of the sand? Then again, they don't care so long as their pockets continued to be lined by corporate greed and they won't be around to see the dire consequences.
Why is it my first thoughts on reading this scientific reveal are.....
"A watched pot never boils."
Well while we are half watching, and with increasing concern, our oceanic pot appears to be starting to simmer. I suspect there is no way this is a good thing...
John~
American Net'Zen
But President Trump, who never talks about global warming other than to dismiss it, wants to shift disaster fund monies to build a wall. It's all he can think about.
If humans are the bow and information is the arrow, one can only pull back the bow so far and no further information will get in. No matter how truthful it is!
In the 1970s the world was up in arms about the impending global cooling! Major scientists and news papers were full of it. (Including the New York Times in print.) The President (Nixon) was counseled by accredited scientists all over the world to take action to avoid the cooling catastrophe!
Many people do not know this but the coral reefs can be revitalized as a multitude of commercial coral farms have proven. Well, if the water is so bad, wouldn’t the coral just die again in a few weeks? Hmm. Many plant farms on land use CO2 greenhouse injection to make plants grow faster. When was the last time you saw that in the news? You didn’t!
The dirty water we pumped from the land (chemicals, sewage, garbage) got into the coastal areas causing the death of countless marine life (not to mention the dead rivers themselves). Interesting, some communities realized this and cleaned up their bad ways all over the western world, not perfectly but decent. I grew up next to Lake Washington, USA. It was contaminated when I was born, but now it’s pretty clean. The Rhein river was indeed DEAD way back! But they cleaned that up too. Fish live there now, not to mention the positive effect on the coast.
90% of ocean plastic comes from 10 rivers not in the west. Of course our cleanup should also include inland areas like Flint, Michigan.
3
@William Perrigo
Global cooling red herring...how many times has that been debunked and it still gets posted. Global warming papers out paced any global cooling papers by a factor of about 6 to one. And the projections from papers on global warming, such as Wallace Broecker's 1975 paper have been accurate. The cooling stuff has been put in the dust bin.
In a controlled environment-- that is not applicable to global warming of the planet--adding CO2 to a greenhouse atmosphere is done to increase yields....but that is just ONE aspect....You left out the need for increased amounts of nitrogen and ammonium fertilizers for any efficacy along with humidity and temperature control.
And the clean air act and clean water act from the 70s were working until now.
3
The posters that reject anthropogenic climate change seem to have a few things in common…they never correct their mistakes...or admit to making mistakes. They post the same red herrings no matter how many times others have posted science which refutes it. Drive by and don’t care and don’t learn a thing.
1
Is it just me or does every article that begins with, "it's way worse than we previously thought," end with, "there's still hope."
5
So i guess when Malaysia and Indonesia cut down their forests to plant palm oil trees, they accelerate the loss of fish from their shores. Boy if I were a citizen there, I'd march on their Capitols.
I wonder if the people of the US that support the policies of Donald Trump know what is coming. More hurricanes floods and fires. However, this was NOT foretold by the Bible because in the Bible these things came AFTER the Rapture and we have not had one yet. I wonder if those Trump folks can figure this out or whether they will make up a lie to twist the words in the Bible.
Just like they twisted the words of the US Constitution which in truth only allows citizens to own guns within "well organized Militias". But of course, truth does not matter anymore.
1
So the question I have from this point is where do we stand relative to the release of methane hydrate deposits in the oceans?
To the uninitiated, there are large deposits of methane stored under the oceans that could change form to gas and release when the oceans get warm enough. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and could profoundly accelerate global warming.
https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
2
Trump bellows about the (fake) national threat posed by Salvadoran and Guatemalan women and children -- Mexico seems not threatened.
Meanwhile, Trump ignores an existential global (includes the United States) -- global warming. Trump is not protecting Americans.
Think of the pressure on migration that will be forced by hotter climate.
Trump = dereliction of duty.
1
Trump has to denigrate anyone who does not share his views. Evidence has no credence where it conflicts with his "gut feelings" or self interest thoughts that spring into his head take precedence over considered arguments. The reward for all this, if the scientists are right, is that this planet will overheat. Sure we may recover but at what cost.
I have been very fortunate to receive a great package from Coca-Cola when I declined to work for Seagram's in NYC. I love NYC but then all the senior managers at Seagram's were alcoholics.
When their personnel director told me what I would get if I did not join Seagram's - I was shocked by the large amount and knew immediately sitting in his office what I would do then. I bought an open around the world ticket and decided to travel around the world for 3 or 4 months. I returned to the USA after 18 months.
I just visited third world countries in the southern hemisphere and also scuba dived in many of the great dive places. My scuba diving were the highlights of my trip.
Coral reefs like mature rain forests have many beautiful critters including coral in many colors and types. There are are multitudes of them. I had my scuba gear and a great Nikon underwater camera. I happened accidentally to be in Hurgada Egypt. By luck I heard about a German dive operation and took a taxi to visit them. By luck they were leaving for a multi day trip to the Brother Islands. When they saw my dive gear which was valued at several thousand dollars - thanks Coke - they invited me to join them. Our first dive was a drift dive and said if there is heaven - this is what it looks like.
Global warming is destroying these beautiful places and our leaders can't be bothered. IMHO Nancy Pelosi will make a great president.
3
So warming oceans could add at least 30 cm to sea level rise by 2100. On top of the impact from our warming oceans we have land based ice melting in Antarctica and Greenland, which may add an additional 40 cm to over a metre.
Despite the real scientific evidence of the very likely effects of global warming, we have the fossil fuel industry supported by politicians like Trump, who will continue to deny the role of mining and burning fossil fuels.
I hope I live long enough to see the current climate change deniers and climate skeptics, to be shown up for the charlatans they are.
The day is short. The task is difficult. It is not our duty to finish it, but we are forbidden not to try. -Talmud
3
Dire Straits. It appears that Earth will be undergoing a massive population adjustment over the next few years and onward. Due to the diversity of opinion in regard to global warming, changing our direction on any aspect of this issue will be impossible until fact meets events denied. Billions will die. The reversals facing humanity will be catastrophic.
2
From op-eds in the WSJ to the crude sales tactics of the Heartland Institute, we hear a drumbeat of protest against climate “alarmism.” The opposite is of course true. Intense political pressure from oil producing states has assured that IPCC reports would be very conservative. Hallowed tradition demands that published scientific conclusions are cautious and careful. But vast numbers of ill-informed and uninformed Americans gobble up the anti-science candy offered by fundamentalist preachers, Fox “News” characters, right wing radio carnival barkers like Mike Pence, and the immoral employees of the climate denial industry.
2
It's hard to feel sorry for a species that could have prevented it's own extinction, yet, did nothing to prevent it.
And the ones that didn't take part in it? Well, that's a different matter all together isn't it? And much, much sadder.
1
@Chicago Guy
"It's hard to feel sorry for a species that could have prevented it's own extinction, yet, did nothing to prevent it".
Humans CAN'T help themselves. You give us FAR too much credit. Being self aware does nothing to help the ignorant, aggressive behavior of we "smart monkeys have inherited from our ancestors. Sadly we will go down as all dead end species!
Ocean warming and it’s effects everyone and everything is to blame. No one can point the finger and say it’s your fault.
Most of us use fossil fuels, we love our cars, we loathe walking or taking public transportation and the real issue so many livelihoods are centered around fossil fuels. Miners, oil field workers, car manufacturing, etc.,
So what do we do as a planet inhabitants ? We need to acknowledge there is a problem, globally, continue to develop clean renewable resources..
We all are here for such a short time, we need to thinking more about what our great and great-great grandchildren will be facing if we do not make changes today.
I applaud New Yorker’s, Los Angelenos, Dc’ ers and others who who walk and take the Metros.
1
Deniers of human caused climate change often point to the inaccuracies of some of the early scientific predictions, and in this they are correct, for it is in fact far worse than we thought.
6
It is criminally negligent to ignore climate change and not to make serious preparations for its consequences and work to reduce the causes in a breach of fiduciary duty.
The cost in both lives and chaos will be enormous.
7
"More warming" can mean hotter. It can also mean deeper.
It has recently been determined that the warming of the ocean goes down to deeper waters than we had realized. This means that the total BTU's of warmth absorbed by the ocean is much more than previously realized. In that sense too, the ocean is warmer than we knew.
This can change deep sea life. It can change ocean currents. It seems to have changed the great fishing banks off the Grand Banks and in the North Sea. The warmer water has changed the fish size and distribution over wide areas.
8
The ancient Mayans, in their meticulous observations of the cycles of time, observed that belief systems (i.e. religions) change every 2000 years or so, and that the climate changes every 5000 years or so. With the 5000 year cycle, animal and plant life die and new life-forms evolve. For example, think of all the animals that perished with the end of the Ice Age.
The year, 2012, marked the shift in both the 2000 year and 5000 year cycles. We are in the throes of a natural change cycle.
15
@Mabb
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Yes, there are cycles and yes, historically and in the present the earth experiences them. But that the so-called greenhouse gases cause a incontrovertible effect of the overall heat budget (as opposed to the waves of weather effects within the budgeted system) is such basic scientific truth that Joseph Priestley, who isolated Oxygen as a molecule in 1784, could have explained in perfectly accurate terms exactly this problem...it's not a theory or question, it's a fact.
My biggest issue with climate deniers is that they reject scientific consensus (which is also a fact) because the models are imperfectly accurate...yeah well if that's a reason to ignore the trend, then there isn't an economic projection in the universe that should be heeded.
88
@Mabb
Their culture didn't last even a thousand years and they didn't have the scientific tools to prove any of that. And thus they were quite wrong about the cycles.
Yes many did perish after the ice age, species that had been around for tens of thousands of years, not 5000. And the possibility was that humans played a large role in exterminating them along with the change of climate, since all those species had gone through climate changes in the past. There were numerous ice ages, it would get cold and then warm up to get cold again. And those species survived those changes.
Right now the cycle would be going into another ice age, not warming and yet the ice age isn't happening at all.
Species do not last just 5000 yrs and then die. The human species is at least 80K and most likely much older than that, maybe 120K.
While the Mayans had many accomplishments, what you are citing is not one of them.
63
@Mabb Only natural if you include the influence of mankind on the extreme growth in the greenhouse gasses as being a natural phenomenon.
16
Thank you for this report on the important work of understanding how bad and how dangerous ocean warming is becoming.
5
Many thanks to Kendra, and the NY Times, for an excellent article - well documented - and horrifyingly accurate.
We all knew, back in the mid 1960's, that the Environmental Picture for Earth didn't look good. The Sierra Club, the NRDC, many hard working people have done all they can to enlighten the general public that Global Warming is very real, and that we must quit burning Coal and Oil, and go to non-polluting renewable forms of Energy.
And, every year, Environmental conditions have gotten worse. We are killing the very Host which sustains us. We are guests, in someone else's Home, and we keep treating Earth like a dumpster.
I look at beautiful children today, and when they ask about Mother Earth's warming, and Habitats dying, I tell them that I am sorry that 50 years of Environmental Work and endless Involvement by so many of us didn't get us very far.
May 2019 bring stronger, and better Environmental Action.
9
The fastest warming ocean water temperatures in the world are in the north east. The Gulf of Maine is getting so warm that the lobsters are moving northerly at a fast pace. The lobsters have already left most of southern New England waters. This is all within the past 10-15 years. In another 10 who knows what will happen. It does not bode well for the future for all ocean creatures. A third of the planet's human population is dependent upon seafood. So humans may starve too.
11
The higher we let global temperatures rise, the greater the risk of them going really high.
From PNAS in 2013. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322.abstract
"Using satellite measurements, this analysis directly quantifies how much the Arctic as viewed from space has darkened in response to the recent sea ice retreat.
We find that this decline has caused 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of radiative heating since 1979, considerably larger than expectations from models and recent less direct estimates. Averaged globally, this albedo change is equivalent to 25% of the direct forcing from CO2 during the past 30 y.”
The reduction in snow cover in the North adds a similar warming as the sea ice melt. The amplifying feedback of ice melt, already quite large according to the above, will increase significantly as Arctic summer ice largely disappears by mid-century or earlier.
Ice melt and release of CO2 and methane by warming oceans and melting permafrost were amplifying feedbacks which caused ancient climate oscillations to be huge, despite the very weak orbital forcings operating on time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years.
And now we have a strong and rapid forcing of rising atmospheric CO2 and ice melting all over the planet and methane beginning to escape the permafrost.
I'm not sure where the brakes are at this point.
7
@Erik Frederiksen, Thank you for your excellent climate related comments. Can't under estimate the methane permafrost cataclysm.
3
Sadly, if no more greenhouse gasses were to be emitted from this moment forward , the the inhabitants of planet Earth would still find themselves hurtling to an extinction event. There is already too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere . It must be removed to escape this terminal fate. Time is of the essence. It will take too much time to make the necessary arrangements to move away from carbon based energy to a sustainable energy future , although this transition is absolutely necessary too. First, the carbon must be removed . But how? To date we don't have the technology to accomplish this goal at scale and without it we will not survive. This is a worldwide existential threat. The threat humanity faced in WW2 , as bad as that was , is dwarfed by this. We need and must have a project on the scale of the Manhattan Project, at least , to defeat this threat. We spent ,all involved nations , huge sums to fight WW2 and that was extremely important . But ,as important as that was, it did not involve the survival of the entirety of humanity. We must ,if we expect to survive, act as a vector of one mind ,all nations, to pour all necessary resources to find a way to remove the carbon in the atmosphere which, at it's furthest extent, will end life on our planet.
16
So, we collectively must become supra-human to survive?
We may surprise ourselves to the upside, but for sure the next 50 years are going to be as fascinating as they will be frightening.
@Steve Randall
Whatever method, of any, we come up with to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, we do know this much: it will take prodigious amounts of energy.
1
We need a Manhattan Project for alternative, non-carbon energy sources. It has to start now (the train is already slowly leaving the station) and it has to have as much funding as the necessary research and development could use. That isn't very much; I think $50,000,000,000 the first year would be enough, and that can come out of the shoot-em-up toys the Pentagon wants (e.g., F-35, battleship, aircraft carrier) and doesn't want (e.g, F-15X) and firing half the generals. And there are other sources, like very rich people and companies who are getting away with financial murder, most recently (Dec., 2018) through their approx. $1,500,000,000,000 tax subsidy.
9
Every six months or so I see an essay like this. Each one proclaims the algorithms on climate change have underestimated the rate of change. Two slabs of ice the size of Idaho are about to break away from Antarctica. After their melt down, sea levels rise as much as ninety feet. This event will mark the end of civilization as we know it. Don't scare your children. Don't discuss this with them.
2
@Jaden Cy
Melting will make no difference to the effect of floating ice. If the ice was floating before it breaks off, there will be no effect on sea level.
I'm skeptical about your numbers, as they are inconsistent with other reports I've read. What is your source for "the size of Idaho" and "about to break away"? I also think (but this is a crude guess) that at most they would raise see level by far, far less than 90 ft. I would like to know your source for that.
3
I agree that we should not scare our children. This is an issue that we adults must face, for our children’s sake. Not doing taking action is a disservice to our children.
1
@Thomas Zaslavsky If the ice is floating, you are correct that melting will make no difference. But if the ice is sitting on land (like, for example, in Greenland or large parts of Antarctica), that is a very different story. I suggest you strive to reduce your biases and try to understand the science at hand.
3
We need effective policy, like a revenue-neutral carbon tax that will be high enough to decarbonize the economy and at the same time protect average consumers by returning all the revenue back to citizens in an equal basis! It also protects American competition through border adjustments on imports not similarly taxed. There is a bill in Congress to do this: the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, introduced in late 2018 and to be reintroduced this Spring again with bipartisan support. Be hopeful and support good policy!
6
The problem of planetary destruction is inherent in our society and economic system. Our economy depends on constant consumption and growth. We think of success as having lots of material things that use a lot of earth's finite resources. To survive we have to enter into the economy and get some irrelevant job so that we can continue to consume. Until this destructive cycle ends the current inhabitants of earth have no chance.
19
@Kevin - so, exactly constitutes "irrelevant jobs"?
@Kevin ...correct ....read the highly researched This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein .....Capitalism is at the root of Earth’s current, and soon catastrophic, environmental problems ...
2
Along with policy makers, we all must do our part. Bicycle if you can, ride the bus or train, use less generally.
3
If I am reading this correctly, it's already checkmate on us humans.
We have solar, we have electric cars, we're vegan, we don't fly. We're trying our best. What are we supposed to tell our 4 young children? Should we prepare them for the apocalypse? Should we try to teach them how to grow their own food in a desert, and make their own clothes, and learn how to use guns (which we don't know how to do), and save water, and build and maintain engines and all manner of engineering principles, and learn diplomacy, and protect themselves from diseases, and not make the mistake that their parents made by bringing children into a dying world in the first place?
What should we do?
6
@Carrie
Good questions, and sad that you have to consider them. You have some good answers as well.
As far as advising them about children of their own I'm not sure. Given what I know about what is coming over the lifetime of a young person I would not have children myself. But my youngest step daughter who is now 22 has always spoken of wanting children of her own. And I don't think I would try to talk her out of it, but it breaks my heart to think of what they will go through. Particularly if they are girls because they don't fair so well when civilization breaks down.
11
@Carrie
Thanks for all you are doing.
There is hope for huge carbon sequestration by agriculture: read Growing a Revolution by David Montgomery. Email your congressperson and senators. Tell them we MUST take action on climate. We can't do enough as individuals to fix it; we must fix the larger economic and political system.
6
@Carrie . Our kids are teenagers.
We are moving to a 320 acre enclave in the SIerras. I urge you to have your children band together with others and form their own enclave of shared labor, protections and whatever joys may survive.
3
Do I read this right, that the new analysis shows more rapid warming by decreasing the temperature readings from the earlier years in the curve? I ask this because of historical experience with "data scrubbing" being used to achieve a desired result. Clear plots of original data and of scrubbed data would help us see what is happening.
2
@james lowe
Link below includes a reasonable explainations...well cited....for adjustments to the temperature records. The adjustments are really not much and even if adjustments were not used, the data still indicates a lot of warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/how-data-adjustments-affect-temp-records.html
11
@james lowe - first, I ask you to actually read the paper, the associated data and methods supplemental information and then look at the sources cited in the Science piece referenced - it's open access:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128.full
But the desired result of people who promote false views about the data processing is to sow doubt about the validity of science that bases conclusions on far more than just temperature data records or sophisticated climate models.
Nature is documenting the warming, too. Growth seasons and zones are changing, pests like the beetles advancing north in the Pacific Northwest don't read thermometers, and mountain ice and ice sheets are also just responding as nature does when greenhouse gases increase.
Ice patch archaeology is a good example. Ice patches are basically glaciers with no downward escape route, so they're stable, long-term accumulations of compacted snow, going back thousands or tens of thousands of years. Since they've been frozen non-stop for so long, they preserve organic materials for a very long time.
Well, ice patches around the world are melting, so trying to retrieve, document and preserve a sudden rush of artifacts is creating kind of a last-chance boom.
https://www.archaeologicalconservancy.org/archaeology-in-the-ice-patches/
Our ancient history is melting away with mountain ice. No thermometers read, the ice knows the melting point.
10
@james lowe:
Layman's argument, surprisingly enough, is that honing data is somehow akin to lying to the public. . .
Please explain what motivation gives us/scientists a "desired result".
3
So if the oceans have absorbed 40% more heat than previously thought — a bold claim, considering how sparsely instrumented the oceans have been until Argo, but never mind — then that 40% should show up in sea level rise, correct?
Which is obvious from the chart of sea level change showing the component due to water warming ... Oh. Wait. There isn't one.
Or there is a chart showing how the long term trend in sea level change changed because of that 40% greater warming than previously known. Oh. Wait. Not one of those either.
Why no depiction of what should be obvious knock-on effects?
3
Read the scientific papers. They probably have good charts.
6
@Jeff Guinn - gee, Jeff. Perhaps because each newspaper article published doesn't have to be an encyclopedia?
1
@Tony Quintanilla
The paper can be accessed here:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128
My fear has always been that early predictions re: the speed and consequences of global warming were purposely very conservative to avoid the egg on face situation of being "wrong" in the eyes of climate science deniers. Perhaps, it is due to publication bias, but I seem to read far more stories about the situation being worse than better than predicted. But, then, I have often analogized earth to the nutrient agar in a Petri dish that has been inoculated with bacteria. It doesn't end well for the agar or the bacteria. So, I ask myself, "why am I "surprised?"
9
It helps if you can see what’s happening with your own eyes as I have done, diving and snorkeling at various places around the world for the last 25 years. Where ever I dive the steady degradation of reefs, the loss of color and aquatic life is depressing, compared to what once was. We just spent a week in Fiji sailing a catamaran, and the reefs are in very bad shape, bleached out, literally tons of dead coral washing up to the shore. While we were sailing we always had two fishing lines going, not a single bite. The locals said the water was too warm, you had to 40 miles or more off shore to catch anything. Later we stayed at a fairly high end resort, all the fish they served was imported from New Zealand! There is something inherently wrong here and I feel for the Fijian people for whom fish, once a staple, has now become a delicacy.
In the wealthy countries of the world most believe in man made climate change, many do not. But I think most of us, believers and non, have a feeling of immunity. In Fiji the people I talked to all believed in climate change, not because they read about it, but more viscerally, because they are living it.
38
That’s right. And we who are most responsible and most insulated are also standing in the way of global action. Food for thought.
@Mr. B - yeah. I used to snorkle in the Caribbean, never did any scuba, and stopped after yet another bleaching some years ago - the last place I went I ended up taking the couple who owned a boat I'd do day sails on out to dinner rather than sail for the day because they told me there just wasn't any good coral left for me at shallower depths.
One thing which makes this a wicked problem is the tremendous momentum in Earth's energy system and climate. A lot of people so far in the developed world have experienced little impact.
But because of lags in the system and the long life of CO2 we may have already dialed in around another degree C of temperature rise and 6m of sea level rise (from West Antarctica and marine sectors of Greenland's ice sheet).
An ice sheet is a good example. The heat we've already put into to ocean is chewing away at ice shelves which constrain ice sheet flow. The retreat rate of Thwaites Glacier which can unzip the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is here:
https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt0wz826xt/qt0wz826xt.pdf
About 14 km in 19 years in the main flow. Maybe 70 km until it gets deep and starts a rapid retreat.
7
@Erik Frederiksen
The Antarctic is land covered with ice. the mass of ace above the land has increased substantially over the last twenty years, and the ice shelve losses are less than the growth of ice over the land.
@ebmem
Ice sheet mass loss, notice the lines curve downwards indicating acceleration.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/IceMass.png
The trend in sea level rise doesn't bode well for coastal areas.
1870-1924 0.8mm per year
1925-1992 1.9mm per year
1993-2012 3.1mm per year
Currently around 4.4mm per year according to this paper. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104007/meta
When you graph the above it looks very much like the beginning of a very non-linear upward curve.
Graph of sea level rise through 2012 https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png
Graph of post glacial sea level rise, http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/post-glacial_sea_level.png , note the curve at Meltwater Pulse 1A.
5
@ebmem
"The Antarctic is land covered with ice"
Antarctica contains around 57m of sea level rise equivalent of ice.
19m of that is termed a marine ice sheet; it has its feet in a warming ocean.
Thinks about that.
4
Genuine Question ..... TOPEX Poseidon was a satellite program to map ocean surface topography. As in wave height. Warming ocean water meant that, as the water expanded, wave height increased. It boggled my mind that they could calculate ocean temperatures since they had to subtract out tides and all sorts of wave action. But they did.
So the question is, how come this ground breaking work is not referenced in this study?
3
@Alan - probably because the TOPEX/Poseidon mission ended in 2006 and the last IPCC report, written in 2012, had already included knowledge gained from that mission.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/topex/
This Science piece reviewed newer studies that were completed after the IPCC 5th Assessment and the CMIP5 model runs. The new studies incorporated more ARGO data, better algorithms for some data processing and additional older data that had been digitized and incorporated into ocean heat records.
The Science piece is open source, so you can read it, the supplemental materials and reference list here:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128.full
3
@b fagan - thank you for your reply. If you have the patience, I have another question. Under the heading "The Oceans are Heating Up," the graph in the article shows curves for both Deeper ocean warming and Shallower ocean warming. The curve for the deeper ocean warming is steeper. Intuitively I would have expected the opposite. Are the descriptive captions for each curve reversed? If not, why would the deep ocean warming warm more quickly?
In advance, thank you for your comments.
1
@Alan - hi Alan, you're welcome. Regarding your second question - I don't know the answer to that. I expected what you did, and I'm not sure why it's different, but the trend is sharper when the depths to 2000 meters are included, I confirmed by looking here:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ocean-heat-content-1/assessment
I'd do more research, but with most of NOAA unavailable (border shutdown), I'll offer a suggestion for where you might get the question answered. RealClimate is a science blog run by a bunch of practicing climate science experts, and each month they have an open thread for questions about the science.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/
So if you post it there, you're likely to get a more accurate answer than I could give you.
That done, now I'll just speculate a little bit, but don't take this as anything by amateur guesswork. I think part of the reason the trends show like that is because the warming has been going on for decades, and mixing downwards for decades. At the same time, El Niño events, and there have been several powerful ones in recent decades, exchange some of the heat from upper-level waters with the atmosphere, so the warming trend in 0-700 is somewhat slowed by occasional dumping of heat to the surface.
Again, that's just my guess, ask the experts at RealClimate and you'll do better.
Rising ocean temps stop oxygen production by phytoplankton by disrupting the process of photosynthesis:
"About two-thirds of the planet's total atmospheric oxygen is produced by ocean phytoplankton -- and therefore cessation would result in the depletion of atmospheric oxygen on a global scale. This would likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans." as soon as 2100.
Journal Reference:
Yadigar Sekerci, Sergei Petrovskii. Mathematical Modelling of Plankton–Oxygen Dynamics Under the Climate Change. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 2015; DOI: 10.1007/s11538-015-0126-0
11
@LKM warmer water also holds less dissolved gas, so oxygen depletion is happening, particularly in warmer surface waters, that way.
1
@LKM
Increased water temperature increases conversion of CO2 to O2 except in areas close to human waste effluent, where the high BOD overwhelms nature and toxic algae blooms occur.
The worst impact (and his legacy) the President leaves behind once he departs will be he won't be gone. Two years in and the possibility of six more to go, busily reversing, repealing, extraction expansion, turning a blind eye to science and the futures of his grandchildren. That won't be the end. Behind he will leave those steeped in denial and those who would use that denial as a means to accentuate profits.
Let them eat fish. If they can find any.
11
And perhaps most perniciously, we are loosing time, which makes the problem more and more unsolvable. We are adding CO2 much faster than can be removed by natural processes.
The natural atmospheric removal rate of CO2 is about 70% in 100 years, and the rest takes even longer, asymptotically.
1
What “units of energy” are charted? It makes no sense without objective data with actual units.... Else, Where is the Beef?
3
@Morgan - units would have been helpful, but even a dimensionless unit shows the trend clearly enough.
But here's a combined chart showing ocean heat content in the 0-700 meter and 0-2000 meter depth ranges since 1955. The units of energy in the chart are zettajoules - which is real, each unit represents 1 sextillion joules of energy, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ocean-heat-content-1/assessment
And the trends are up. We're heating the ocean. A lot.
4
@Morgan
I was wondering the same thing.
Am I missing something?
"Units of energy"...how scientific.
Celcius, tenths of degrees, kilojoules???
I can hear the passive-agressive voice of my old chemistry professor taunting away in my head. He'd be rolling in his grave if he weren't still among the living.
1
Humanity will turn a corner for the better when scientific atheism receives equal or more respect than Bronze Age myths.
8
Kudos to this apolitical report on accuracy in ocean temperatures. Interesting that Chinese scientists, from a country which is not a major oil producer, are involved and China may be the leader in the fight against climate change already dealing with the expanding Gobi desert.
As the oceans and temperatures rise fresh water will shrink and be salinized and lead to conflict. Wetlands and riverbanks must be restored. NY state is working on that.
7
@Nadine
China will add more CO2 to the atmosphere between 2016-2030 than mankind has added since the inception of the industrial revolution. Despite having signed the Montreal protocol, they are currently adding more CFCs than worldwide levels at the time the treaty was signed.
China is increasing CO2 production faster than the democratic economies are capable of reducing theirs.
You have an odd conception of what constitutes leadership in the fight against global warming.
The Chinese are also causing massive increases in mercury poisoning in the oceans because they burn ever increasing amounts of coal without emission controls.
NY state may be working on restoring wetlands that they filled in and built on and are now sinking, but costal flooding is not the consequence of ocean rises, it is the result of building on land that was doomed to sink. But NYC continues to dump one million gallons per year of raw sewage every year because they have diverted sewer fees to other purposes in addition to hundreds of millions of gallons of secondary treated effluent.
NY continues to expand building in vulnerable ecosystems despite being unable to deal with the consequences of their poor infrastructure.
NY Democrat politicians are like the Chinese communist government. their leadership in environmental matters consists of talking the talk, not walking the walk.
4
@ebmem
19th century Industrialized areas that rezoned into residential development areas do have to submit environmental impact statements which encourages parkland set aside for runoff and adaptation.
Look at Brooklyn Bridge, Dumbo, Greenpoint, Gantry state park, Long Island City. Jamaica Bay now has 3 brand new sewage treatment plants and wetlands restoration near the airport. Connecticut and LI have to do more to restore the health of the long island sound. Long Island's Suffolk county's septic tanks going into the sound and Long Island City's lag of sewage capacity due to recent building surge are being addressed. As for China, I cant confirm your claims. They are closing coal plants around the perimeter of Bejing shortly before and after the recent Olympics. Every day I receive emails from NYS Dept of Envir. Conservation on site cleanups throughout the county and restoration grants awarded to Hudson River riverbank projects and its tributaries. The acquisition of additional public land for recreational use is astounding.
1
I'm a denier - but with some science to back me.
Water absorbs large quantities of heat before its temperature rises; in scientific terms water has a “high specific heat” – highest of all naturally occurring liquids. Earthlings are most fortunate, given that over two-thirds of the earth’s surface is covered with water which with its high specific heat moderates global temperatures and climate.
CO2 is acknowledged a weak greenhouse gas – its atmospheric concentration currently at only about .04% by volume versus about .028% in 1850, the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
In science, correlation isn’t evidence of causation: a crowing rooster doesn’t make the sunrise. Ergo, the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and rising global temperatures isn’t proof of causation.
Most ironically, the fact that there indeed appears to be such a correlation is in fact proof that it’s not due primarily to rise in CO2 concentration.
Reason: The high specific heat of water would easily absorb the fractional increases of solar radiation absorbed by the upper atmosphere’s miniscule increase in CO2 concentration. Such a rise may well be manifested over many centuries – never without time-delay and essentially in-phase with industrialization, as oft depicted in various charts.
There may some AGW influenced climate change – but factors other than CO2 predominate.
So sue me. :-) :-)
3
@Andy Logar
"Water absorbs large quantities of heat before its temperature rises; ..."
The above statement is 100% wrong. Water warms as soon as it is heated...It takes more energy to warm a mass due to specific heat. equation:
Q=mCpDelta T.
The rest is wrong too...CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas accounting for about 10-25% of air warming. The concentration is just a red herring.. 0.04% is not meaningful...it is what is does which is trap heat. The ozone layer is 400 times less than CO2 and blocks most of UV keeping us alive.
The sun has been cooling for decades while the planet is warming...that can't happen due to the laws of thermodynamics. So, it has to be something...CO2 has proven IR absorption and is the only major change along with CH4 over that time. The forcing is about 2.8W/m2...or about a hairdryer of heat for every 500 m2 on the planet.
Unless you provide a forcing causing the warming, you are just posting cynical ideologies.
26
@Andy Logar Proof that CO2 is an effective greenhouse gas has been established experimentally and is well grounded in theory (especially quantum theory). Proof of concept has existed since the mid 1800's and many experiments have verified CO2 as the most important greenhouse gas because of its effectiveness and long life span. The US Air Force Geophysics Laboratory in Massachusetts conducted many experiments while developing heat-seeking missiles confirming the greenhouse effect. The positive correlation you criticize is proof of causation but actually observational evidence of the greenhouse effect. Virtually every scientific organization in the world considers anthropogenic global warming caused primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels to be a serious threat to ecosystems around the world and an existential threat to life as we know it.
17
@John Gibbons Sorry - I disagree - other factors are at play. Potential sources of warming : increased cosmic radiation affecting the upper atmosphere and cloud formation; what was cloud coverage back in the 1850s? - we have no clear idea; deep sea venting and volcanic activity - or just seepage - that is undetectable at the surface. Could play vital part in warming of the oceans.
This is my second comment here. My apologies about that but this article is beyond important -it is our very survival and at least for me it is the survival of most life on earth as well.
If we were to poll a random group of people about the environment I think it would go something like this.
To the naysayers, the uneducated that Trump fondly loves embraces-they occupy the world as living breathing vessels that simply consume and procreate. Let’s say that’s 1/3 rd of the population.
Then there are the hold outs that want to maintain the lifestyle that they think they are entitled to. For every study on global warming that talks of mayhem and impending disaster they carry around in their back pocket a study found on the internet that proves otherwise- like global cooling. That’s a hot topic I just heard lately, Or it’s snowing in Wash DC. Let’s call that the 2nd third of our comrades.
Then there is the rest of us who read news stories like this. We don’t breath water and we don’t see the destruction firsthand but it’s there and recorded. This is serious stuff. I don’t think there is much hope for us and this article proves that and sadly it is not getting out because of too much politics or we can’t admit that our cushy lifestyle in the age of the computer chip has gone awry. Will someone please step up to the plate and explain this problem to and the incredible sacrifice to our lifestyle we will have to make to right this sinking ship! This is important stuff.
23
@Ted Sieberti I share your sense of urgency! Perhaps environmental groups need to change their campaigns to get the public more engaged?
8
@Ted Siebert
If the people who are believers would make a plausible suggestion as to what should be done, it would be received by Trump supporters and those the leftists characterize as deniers.
The Paris accord requires to industrialized democracies to reduce their CO2 production and increase their energy costs by 50% and donate an additional $100 billion per year in foreign aid to the autocratic leaders of the third world. China, meanwhile, doubles their CO2 production between 2016 and 2030. With their low energy costs, they invest in building artificial islands to threaten their Asian neighbors with military installations , plus builds coal fired plants in Kenya and Viet Nam and the rest of their One Road One Belt economic and political expansion of the sphere of influence.
In 2030, CO2 emissions are higher, China is richer and stringer and the US and industrialized democracies are poorer and weaker.
Communist totalitarian government is a greater existential threat, and more immediate threat to world stability than global warming.
Americans are better off, as is the world, if we continue on our present path of inventing new technologies because we benefit from a strong economy and low energy prices.
Canada, Germany, France, Australia have backed off on the priority they place on CO2 in favor of air quality and low energy costs.
Hobbling America with a Green New Deal isn't going to fly.
2
Is this a good time to have a big picture conversation about what a Green New Deal could look like? I know the answer, but I hope the op-ed writers keep that in mind when they write their next hit piece on AOC's "naïveté" as opposed to commending her political courage and straightforward common sense.
11
lets just build that wall. everything else will certainly be okay.
1
So trump may get his wall- an outrageously expensive sea wall not completely caused by him but, he certainly had a hand in it.
1
@laurence bklyn I am an older woman born and raised in Brooklyn ny. southern bklyn to be exact. Wild hurricanes in the 60s? long intense heat waves? never happened. 90 degree days maybe once a summer for 1 day 2 tops. no wild hurricanes either. notable hurricane was recent Sandy. I never saw the rockaways destroyed or any of other damage before then. also lived in Staten Island also never saw anything like it. very misleading comment. your swipe at the demo gave you away.
8
@abProbably before your time but the great hurricane of 1938 comes to mind. Just because, in your short time on this earth, you hadn't seen "wild hurricanes" before doesn't mean they hadn't happened
3
@John Diehl and just because they happened before doesn't mean we aren't warming the climate and affecting weather patterns because of that.
It was warmer in the past. It was hotter in the past. There were big storms and droughts and things before there were SUVs and yada yada yada.
Think about events in the past. The warmest were all caused by large outpourings of greenhouse gas.
So why are people so unable to accept that Nature is just going to do what Nature does when it gets handed another big burst of greenhouse gas? Is Mother Nature supposed to give us a wink and say "Well, since it's you humans, I'll just ignore it this time"?
Climage denier is the wrong term. Magical thinking covers it better.
3
The Catastrophic Global Warming story is rapidly becoming more about human psychology and/or our political discontents than climate science. So every new group of experts with a new way of parsing the stats elicits a new round of end-of-the-world anxiety. All of this predicated on the strange idea that everything should remain the same; that what was when we were kids should always be thus.
For instance, everyone keeps repeating the canard about more powerful hurricanes. But even the slightest effort would reveal the truth about the far more frightening storms of our grandparents times. New England and Long Island (1938) and Galveston (1900,8000 dead) to name just two.
People are adjusting to a life lived indoors and the modern expectation of comfort and safety. It doesn't help that so many advocacy organizations are so quick to shout about the sky falling.
1
Galveston’s disaster probably would have not been so bad, if we had had weather satellites then.
3
@laurence
So, you mean the people did not pay attention to the satellite data back in 1900 and 1938 and evacuate the area? Cherry picking is bad science and storms are just one aspect of the global climate change issue.
If you are older than about 50, don't worry, the next generations will have the vast majority of the problems.
for info: Simple thermodynamics...warmer water....stronger storms.
10
There is plenty of evidence for the trends. This is not just unscientific impressions and opinions.
Guided mainly by the principles of the Enlightenment, humans have created an incredible amount of progress on many fronts in the past few hundred years. Recent stories about malaria prevention and millions of people being lifted out of poverty are inspiring, while many of even the poorest people in developed nations enjoy ease and health that was unheard of a hundred years ago. And, for better or worse, the wealthy of today live like gods of myth.
But all of that will be for nothing if we don't solve climate change. All of it can disappear and return us to the dark ages, or worse.
If your concern doesn't extend to other forms of life, maybe you'll be moved to honor the work of countless people who made the world as we know it, and prevent all their work from being for naught.
13
Our measurements, models, and calculations all resemble a flashlight shown through a keyhole to illuminate a room. But this is not to say they are useless. Invariably we are finding new climate data that is more dire than predicted. So it is reasonable to guess that our predictions are far too conservative. Given the way science is practiced, and the preciousness of a reputation, this is inevitable
Given the huge lag time we have in following up such warnings with action we will be dead before the final data is collected.
8
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Political or business leaders who advocate unwarranted taxes and regulations on fossil fuels will be seen as fools or knaves. Climate change is NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Earth naturally recycles all carbon dioxide into carbonate.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. 99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in earth's crust. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.
The Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost more than $100 trillion -- $15,000 per human being. A colossal mistake. All the wealth that ever existed. And will not affect climate at all. A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas.
Coal & gas dominate electric energy generation because they are cheap and reliable. Without the CO2-driven global-warming boogeyman, wind and solar power will be relegated to the niches they deserve.Using renewable energy is like paying first-class airfare to fly standby.
2
What you say may be true, that "climate change is merely some bogeyman. But your position just does not address the reality of a changing biome. What do we do as coastal areas get flooded and taken away by the seas, or when food yields fall or even collapse due to changed temperatures, or when lush areas become desertified forcing migrations?
8
@Sam We do the same thing that humans have done all throughout history - we adapt and survive. Continuing to grow government and over tax individuals and businesses certainly won't solve anything. Global climate has been changing long before fossil fuel consumption. We need to shift the discussion of climate change towards things we can do to adapt rather than allowing governments to blame humans so they can take more of our money.
1
I will trust the scientists thank you very much. And what are you suggesting anyway, that we do nothing and sit by while the natural disasters get worse and our cities get flooded? Why don’t you link to some actual science and journal articles instead of spouting unsubstantiated “facts”
14
One of the major problems I see is that the reporting about climate is being done by reporters, not people who are knowledgeable. So the explanations don't make it clear what is happening or why we should care. I found this piece long but worth taking the time to read
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html?emc=edit_ma_20180803&nl=magazine&nlid=6791466520180803&te=1
3
Yes.
And re the Australian coral reef:
“It’s more than an alarm bell, it’s an air raid siren.” John “Charlie” Veron, the Godfather of Coral
The oceans are losing plankton, fundamental food base;
the oceans are losing oxygen;
the oceans are acidifying;
the oceans suffer severe nitrogen pollution from fertilizer;
and; and; and...
1970: “The oceans are in danger of dying.” Jacques Cousteau
1977: American culture responds with: The Love Boat
You know, I don't even blame people anymore because I think this is an emergent, global phenomenon. What's emerged is unprecedented environs and we're simply not coded — biologically or culturally — to process complex global relationship information with exponential dynamics and myriad long term consequences. Processing that amount of information is beyond our computation abilities, not only intellectually, but emotionally as well.
Emotions are more fundamental than reason; and interestingly, as neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has pointed out, we can't even decide between cheese variations without engaging the emotions.
Plus, we gotta floss and forage, wash and work.
And yes, we've generated these unprecedented environs with our numbers, power and concomitant reach. But again, a global scale with innumerable cascades — we're just not built to interface with those emergent environs.
We're coded to process local environs in a relatively short-term manner with mostly linear dynamics.
Love your loved ones ...
14
Most species alive today, including perhaps our own, are doomed unless we stop this rapid warmng.
Thinking people need to act not just talk.
10
@San Francisco Voter Most species except cockroaches, rats and fire ants. The love the hot earth and the decayed flesh.
4
As if the warming of the oceans was their only problem. Acidification is as great, or a greater problem for marine life. As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, it is absorbed by the surfaces waters of the world's oceans.
Corals, and much of marine life are invertebrates who depend on calcium to create protective shells or structures necessary for their survival. Increasingly acid sea water interferes with the calcification processes in marine life.
Little wonder that the coral is dying, and immense jellyfish blooms are driving beach-goers from the water in vacation paradises around the globe.
10
And I'm sure the solution is to tax me even more. I don't even drive, but somehow I'm responsible and need to solve the problem by paying more, even though I can't afford what they already take. Never mind China.
2
@Bob If they tax gas and you don't drive, how would you pay more?
5
@Bob - how much tax money is soaked up in disaster relief and recovery efforts from wildfires and the follow-on mudslides from stripped hillsides? How about how much has FEMA and other relief agencies sunk into homes that flood multiple times, and cities that do, too?
Houston had a 500 year flood when Harvey hit them. Texas applied for FEMA relief immediately but left their $8 billion rainy-day fund untouched.
Houston had had a 500 year flood the year before Harvey, and one before that.
SO, Bob, what do you think tax rates will do when coastal infrastructure has to be raised, replaced, repaired, abandoned? Miami's raised $500,000,000 in taxes just for high-tide flood relief since sea levels now make streets wet in sunny day king tides. And that's just the start.
The folks who say "we should just adapt" or "don't raise my taxes" just don't have a grasp on how massively expensive it is to have to elevate a cities entire sewer system, or put in desalination because their aquifer's gone salty, or what it costs to raise just one mile of road - oh, and then the people along the road have to raise their property because of street runoff.
Do you understand?
Doing nothing is extremely costly.
5
Yes, a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where all the revenue goes back to the citizens on an equal basis every month. If you don’t drive you’ll likely be money ahead while the economy shifts away from fossil fuels! Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act Of 2018, and soon to be reintroduced on a bipartisan basis!
Ocean warming offers both warmer water and a grave danger.
Deep in the ocean's trenches and more, lurks methane sequestered in cold water under pressure.
We learned about some small villages that were in valleys near ancient lakes created by volcanic action, that were overwhelmed and killed when the deep volcanic lake warmed and went through "turn over" of the methane held in the deepest part of the lake. Such events happened suddenly and wiped out villages as the villagers slept.
Oceans can work in a similar fashion, and there are huge amounts of methane in the deepest parts of the ocean.
Methane is a short lived but potent global warming gas.
Ocean warming could lead to faster melting of ice, both in Antarctica and in Greenland.
Think about 650,000 CUBIC MILES of ice standing almost two miles thick over Greenland.
11
When more than ninety percent of the world practice degree Celsius, what is the necessity for US still reports in degree Fahrenheit?. First,let us go for the same unit of measurement for heat globally,either degree Celsius or degree Fahrenheit
before the launch of our mission to beat the heat.
What is the advantage of dividing the world between SI and CGS units of measurement ?.
4
Better yet, adopt Kelvin. 68F = 20C = 293K. Zero K is absolute zero, nothing coder.
4
For the same reason we don’t act on climate. We are very self-satisfied.
Nature is not cooperating with the prognosticators? I’m not sure which should feel embarrassed.
1
Ocean warming is wonderful news for nations in the Northern hemisphere who will find a multitude of new opportunities for growth and development.
When I lived in Iceland a few years back, the local population was excited about new possibilities for tourism and military bases.
Greenland and Russia are also set to derive great benefit from ocean warming.
So it seems time to mention the possibilities ocean warming might bring, instead of always obsessing about the drawbacks.
As the Earth changes, humans must adapt and make the best of any situation.
1
@Rolf. Only problem is, there is a reasonable chance of reversal of the thermo-haline cycle in the North Atlantic which would turn Northern Europe climate more like the climate of all other land masses at that latitude. That's one reason Europe is so committed to dealing with climate change.
And how does it follow that warmer is always better? Your comment is seriously deficient in historical context.
16
@Rolf You've completely lost the forest for the trees. Great to look for silver linings in bad situations, but when we literally destroy ourselves and most of the ecosystems on our planet, Iceland, Greenland and Russia won't derive any benefit, I assure you.
3
@Rolf
Don't buy anything in Miami or other low lying lands, as warming oceans will kill those lands.
Miami Beach already suffers flooding monthly.
3
We've met the enemy snd he is us.
9
Oh! The joy of being old.
7
Congratulations, we live in interesting and exciting times.
@art rileyAt 73 I couldn't agree more.
The Professor has a pop quiz: 1. Is Homo sapiens capable of solving climate change? (ans. No. Denial, greed, ambition and megalomania win). 2. What will the earth's human population be in 2120? (ans. 1 billion people, same as 1800). 3. When will Homo sapiens become extinct? (Ans: Your guess is as good as mine). 4. Will Homo sapiens exist as long as the dinosaurs? (Ans: The dinosaurs occupied the earth for more than 150 million years, H. sapiens has been around for less than 200,000; a microsecond in natural history. At this rate, we won't make 1 million.). Grade: Er, we'll have to take a make-up exam. We need to study a lot more.
17
@MTDougC 1 million? Human won;t make it past the next 500 years.
3
Wait, I thought that the trait that makes us humans unique and more successful is the ability to anticipate and solve problems rationally?
This should be the banner above the fold story today in the NYT, not the latest tidbit on Humpty Trumpty and his Great Wall. Priorities!
23
Five years from now, the word Trump will be substituted by "extinction".
All this outrageous and incredible feats wall-papering the media will disappear.
We humans are a disgrace and deserve all that's coming to us.
17
@Dontbelieveit
Okay, so five years from today, if nothing has happened, then will you concede that manmade global warming is not a problem?
1
@Disgruntled 5 years from now? Where have you been? Do you read news about hurricanes, wildfire?
2
@Disgruntled
It is already happening, the effects from climate change and they will increase over time. In 5 yrs, though the change will not enough. Climate change will take decades to have the worst effects.
In the meantime, slowly the storms will increase in strength, the droughts will get worst, more coral reefs where people get food will die, the oceans will acidify more.
No one is saying that in 5 yrs the world will end. But it will be a bit worst and keep getting that way.
If your house has a small fire in the kitchen, do you say, naw do nothing it's small right now? Or do you try to put it out when it is small? Not wait until it covers the whole kitchen.
1
Build an Ark!
Maybe evangelicals would support this idea and forget that cockamamie Wall.
4
Is this the promised end?
Or image of that horror?
2
Everywhere I look there are different ideas, theories, facts(?), it is insane. Cannot the World come up the one theory that is the truth. The POTUS denies climate change. Is he wrong or right? Who decides? Does nothing really matter?
Ask Alexia? Toss a crazy eightball?
2
@Art. Here is my suggestion for One Theory. There is no god except Mother Nature. We have no invisible friends. Religion historically has been the biggest source of human misery. Evidence? Religious wars.
4
No, use the scientific method to propose and check explanations based on evidence, and re-evaluate continuously.
That separates science from opinion, ideology, and bias. Science is not intuitive. It requires intellectual discipline and effort. And it has yielded the fruits of the modern world, good and bad.
Now we are fighting for our lives from climate change we created unintentionally with our fossil fuel economy. An economy that made us better off than ever.
Going back to pre-scientific thinking or economy is not the answer. We must see this through by moving forward not backward. Or the crisis will push us who knows where.
1
On the brighter side, you won’t need a wetsuit to see the ocean is dying. /s
3
Doh! Al Gore's going to have to move his latest mansion farther inland, then.
@Nath Carter - and join the ensuing battle for drinking water across the over-subscribed rivers of the Southwest. Here's some news about the increasingly deep bathtub ring around Lake Mead. The sad thing about the article below is that it mentions people are still allowed to grow lawns in the desert.
"But according to a new federal prediction by the Bureau of Reclamation, the water level of the Colorado River, which feeds into Lake Mead, has a 52 percent chance of reaching a critical low in 2020.
“Arizona and Nevada would be the first two states to take shortage,” Bureau of Reclamation spokesperson Patti Aaron said.
“It’s very important to keep in mind, this is the first time ever that shortages have the ability of occurring in 2020,” Mack said."
https://www.fox5vegas.com/news/federal-report-lake-mead-water-supply-could-hit-critical-low/article_c9382595-2805-53b0-be6b-28297a0a1580.html
2
don't believe all that doom and gloom, it's lefty agenda driven "scientists" who get money from the government when their "findings" jibe with their handlers. Remember the Coming Ice Age they were touting? The Great Lakes were to be permanently frozen over by year 2000? The world was to be out of oil by 2005? And this so called drought? We toured the mansions of Hollywood 2 summers ago during the worst of the drought,..looked like monsoon season in a rain forest, all that water running down the roads and gutters of the rich lefty elite. Even Al Gore bought himself an Olympic pool in CA, for his personal use,..so much for the water shortage. The reason Lake Mead is low is that half of California moved here, along with their families and businesses---they wrecked the Golden State with their compassion with other people's money, and then they just move to escape the taxes and environmental regs THEY naively voted for.
@Nath Carter - that level of ignoring reality must be kind of refreshing. City in a desert, with lawns designed for Olde England's climate, and you seem to feel Lake Mead is just a pond for people living in one desert city?
Sorry, but the surface water in the Southwest is all shared, and it's all oversubscribed.
"Formed by the Hoover Dam, the reservoir serves water to the states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, as well as some of Mexico providing sustenance to nearly 20 million people and large areas of farmland."
Farming in a desert. That's rich, too.
1
But . . . but . . . the WALL!
6
Do remind those over at the Travel Section about this reality, as they post their annual 52 Places to Go in the world. Stay home!
8
And yet we have the deep oceans cooling, residual action from the Little Ice Age.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/70
We've only really had good data since Argo began recording in 07. Previous estimates are very limited and proxy data accuracy is very difficult to determine.
I find the alarmism and subsequent political pattering to be distracting. We should be smarter than this.
1
@Jim You do realize that this is even worse news, not good news. Ultimately the millennial long ocean rise will be driven by the warming of the deep ocean and now you report that it is currently cooler than thought. Therefore there will be MORE expansion as it warms and equilibrates with the surface and even more ocean rise due to the extra expansion. This doesn't even worry about melting Greenland ice sheet. Over the next 200 years the coastal cities with ~ 1/2 the world's population are really in trouble
5
@Jim - did you read the open-access piece in Science that was linked in this Times article? Because the one you link is showing that 700-year-old cold surface water is where they expected it to have flowed by now in the deep ocean.
The better data this Times article talks about (and links to) is why they revised UPWARDS the amount of heat the ocean absorbed recently. Better data paints worse picture.
So 700 years from now, anyone out there researching the ocean will see a slug of very warm water where they found the cold water you talked about.
4
@Jim
If one actually reads the paper, it states that the pacific deep ocean is cooling slightly due to circulation being slower in the larger pacific...and the Atlantic ocean is warming. The cooling only offsets about 1/3 of the total warming...and it's only a model anyhow.
So, not applicable. Especially since sea levels are rising and are a direct indication of warming.
3
Climate change does not respect borders or walls.
10
Perhaps the super-rich actually want to ACCELERATE global warming, just to kill off 4 billion "poor" people?
Perhaps they think they can retreat behind high walls with private armies, or on luxury icebreakers (google it) to the Arctic?
7
Liberal environmentalists who have children usually say they plan to raise them to find solutions and be future leaders or some such. Whatever version is expressed indeed sounds good and well-intentioned. In reality, they also hope their kids lead essentially first world lifestyles with serious buying power and successful lives......essentially the ability to break up ever increasing amounts of carbon. Those are very human desires. Where and what are the arguments or basis for legitimate hope?
4
We need to decarbonize the economy and go forward, not stick with the carbon economy and go backwards.
As if we really needed one, another vital, pressing reason to get the know-nothing GOP out of power. Just watch, there will be plenty of comments denouncing the “radical democrat climate hoax”.
7
My ignorant comment is that I enjoy diving and travel to the Caribbean often. I always check the water temperatures to see if I need a wet suit or not (Bahamas are cooler than Aruba in the winter).The websites that I use show water temperatures for every month for the last 10 years. There is not any change in historical water temperatures in the Caribbean for the last 10 years. Perhaps the information that I am looking at does take temperatures at deep enough areas.
1
@Wop333
The Caribbean is not a sufficient area and 10 years is not sufficient time to draw any conclusions about overall ocean temperatures. In addition, the data presented is not likely from a data base that would be suitable for climate analysis.
3
@Wop333
"A rigorous statistical analysis of sea surface temperature observations over 25 years was used to examine spatial variability in overall and seasonal temperature trends within the wider Caribbean. The basin has experienced high spatial variability in rates of change of temperature. Most of the warming has been due to increases in summer rather than winter temperatures."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1200094X
Quote from it: "The average trend in SST over the Caribbean Sea and the southeastern Gulf of Mexico was 0.29 °C decade (including only significant values), with a range of -0.20–0.54 °C decade"
2
This story appeared this morning and only 194 comments. The ocean covers 71% of the earth and it’s not carrying the weight that other stories of the day. To quote the only president who would eventually be incarcerated -“how sad.”
6
I am starting to hope that Trump will declare a national emergency to build his wall, on dubious reasons.
This will give ground for the next Democrat president to declare another one, to fight climate change.
10
We are treating our environment with the same propaganda that was used by the cigarette companies denials that tobacco caused cancer.
Who will pay for the devastation that is coming from the Republican desire to make the quick dollar? They are greatly weakening the EPA. Trump enjoys selling the lie that there is no global warming.
Unlike the time it takes for a broken bone to heal, it will take decades if not centuries to repair the damage. Greed and ignorance have won the day.
203
@Barney Feinberg In America the almighty dollar is the only thing that matters.
3
@Barney Feinberg Easy solution- stop driving, flying, buying products with plastic, and eating meat. These are all contributors to emissions- if we stop doing those things, demand for emissions-generating products will fall. Demand is purely in the hands of the consumer. Stop demanding these products and supply must fall.
2
@Barney Feinberg Make that millennia.
2
The same physics we're messing with makes Venus hot enough to melt lead and Mars cold enough to freeze out CO2.
And those are our sister planets. What could go wrong?
12
Oceans warming 40 percent faster than previously thought. What does this mean?
A) Massachusetts and Maine lobstermen and fishermen will soon have to find new jobs as shellfish and fish move away from warmer waters or die off.
B) Fly over America will revolt over new higher federal taxes needed to rebuild the private mansions and resorts along the coasts wiped out by 500 year storms occuring every year.
C) Republicans in Tennessee and Wyoming will celebrate their new ocean front properties.
The fact is no Republican takes global warming seriously. No Republican is willing to give up coal for solar energy. Republicans can find snow somewhere on earth to prove beyond a doubt to others Republicans that science is fake and global warming is a giant hoax.
As for Republicans in Congress and their genius in the Oval Office, they don't care about an uninhabitable earth several generations in the future. They value fossil fuel money in their pockets today more than a place on earth for their great grandchildren to live.
17
@JABarry Sadly you are are so right. The Greed Over People Party of Trump could care less about future generations. Their cold, heartless, selfish, lying hearts only live for today not tomorrow.
5
Terrible legacy to leave children we claim to love. Jimmy Carter tried to bring global warming to the forefront after the gas crises of the early seventies and by installing solar panels which Reagan promptly removed. Then Al Gore tried. Even if some brilliant scientists manage to save the planet, Republicans have cut their funding. But we have a President with a good feel for science and high IQ. We’re toast.
19
Good luck my children. Hopefully you will be more sensible than we are. I'm sorry.
7
What should be of most critical importance is that by the end of this century we may have several billion climate refugees. Look at all the impoverished areas close to the world's coastlines and consider where these folks are going to migrate to as their homelands are submerged. Most of us will not live to see this "new normal", but our offspring will have almost unimaginable challenges that may never be abated.
8
There is only one way to protect the USA and Canada against the rising sea: a wall along the coastline and Canada will join in. So Canada will pay for part of the Friendship Oceanic Trumpian Wall.
4
I'm here to echo the obligatory, "This is our national emergency" comment.
But alas we currently have an illegitimate president throwing a temper tantrum because not everyone thinks overt racism is represents American values.
He'd probably think today's study published in Science was a waste of money. But it's not like he's ever going to read the article...
8
As an NYU and MIT educated Air Force meteorologist for 22 years, the fact that the earth is warming due to expanded burning of fossil fuels is well established. I find it bizarre that the world’s various religions are totally accepted by many people based on zero confirmation evidence. What makes fairy tales more credible than science? My guess is the desire for eternal life.
45
Jay made this comment earlier and it bears repeating:
"The most dangerous threat from sea-level rise is war. Many countries have low-lying coastlines (Bangladesh, China, central America, Pacific islands), in addition to Western countries like Great Britain, Holland, France, Scandinavia). When sea levels rise to the point of driving people away from their homes (think Bangladesh), these people will have to migrate upland. To India, China, Burma, Russia, etc. These countries will not want to accept the migrants (for economic, population, cultural, and religious reasons), and war will ensue."
10
@JJGuy - just to make it more fun to think about, India's population will be passing China's fairly soon, and India and Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons and they and their rapidly-growing neighbors in Southeast Asia all depend on several rivers originating in the Himalayas, and depend on monsoons.
It's not yet clear how the monsoons will be affected, but the glaciers feeding those rivers are mostly losing mass. Oh, and India is overpumping groundwater.
4
And our southern Bible Belt will no longer support intelligent life. But then, when did it ever?
4
Actual “sea level” is based on topography as much as water or (more correctly, as is stated in the article) warming volume. If you have a sinking coastline like Florida’s karst or settle millions of farmers in a flood-prone estuary, like Bangladesh (the farmers are there because the flooding fertilizes the soil!), there is an increase in sea level because the Florida coastline is sinking more so than the sea rising, and flooding in Bangladesh because of human-greed-driven mismanagement of what would, were nature to truly take its course, be a massive coastal wetland. In contrast, the Northwest pacific is a tectonic uplift zone and the level of the sea relative to the land is falling. Do you understand how this works now? Good. Panic about it may help stop fossil fuel exploitation, which is essential for a lot of reasons, bu if we continue je to obscure basic truths like these, the other side will win
Wasn't it last week where there was a story on how the oceans were cooling due to some deep water coming up from down below that was from the last ice age?
Methane, released by global warming from the oceans and permafrost , has 80 X the heat trapping potential of CO2. Another Permian- Triassic event could be the result and That would be the end of life on Earth as we know it...just sayin..
7
You are correct. Melt the permafrost, release the methane from decayed vegetation, and game over.
5
I am so depressed that this is much lower on the page than the Fake Border Crisis Trump is acting out.
8
It is impossible that there is any global warming given that the most powerful person in the world, President Donald Trump of the United States, forbids such. When will scientists accept this fact?
5
Not important - we've got a wall to build!
4
Crisis at the southern border. Hmmm. Holding innocent government employees hostage for what. There are way bigger concerns and no leadership to address them.
8
Haddock fillets are on sale for $5.99 a pound at the local supermarket this week.
1
We heard scare-mongering like this during the California drought a couple of years ago. Now there's no more drought. Remember the moral of Chicken Little ("the sky is falling")? It's that something you're not expecting is going to get you.
Hair dryers? The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 15 kilotons of TNT. Each kiloton of TNT has a yield of about 4.2 x 10^12 joules. So the Hiroshima bomb released 6.3 x 10^13 joules. The total energy added to the oceans between 1971 and 2010 is about 2 x10^23 joules. That's the equivalent of 3.3 BILLION atom bombs going off in the oceans over 39 years -- or about 84 million Hiroshima bombs being exploded in the ocean each year. 84 million atomic bombs. Every year. In our planet's oceans.
11
Funny that every developed, developing and third-world country we’ve visited over the past decade on every continent understands the implications of climate change. They are experiencing it through drought which impacts their crops, lack of water, migration, and a scramble for limited resources. And most are making plans to help alleviate the fast march toward worse conditions for their citizens.
Meanwhile, our leaders tightly close their eyes and ears, ignore science and spout climate theories that have been debunked. Or believe it is “ God’s will.”
It really is time for each of us to take responsibility: learn the facts, watch the deterioration around you, and vote accordingly. Only informed citizens will guide our progress forward.
Please become one of them. It’s almost too late.
170
@It's About Time
Exactly! 'Or believe it is “ God’s will.”' is the sorriest one! Even God helps those who, at least try to, help themselves. Sitting around denying the effects, or helplessly waiting and spewing the same pollutants into the atmosphere, will do nobody any good.
4
It seems that nearly every day new research comes out showing humans are killing the planet. What's it going to take for the ultimate in self-interest -- that is, the desire for self-preservation -- to kick us into taking actions to address this emergency? Even if there were a 5% chance all the science was wrong, isn't the threat significant enough to take action just in case?
And while we talk about a wall to keep out Central Americans affected by poverty and violence, what do we think will happen when millions of people have to flee coastal areas going under water? Talk about refugees -- we ain't seen nothing yet if the environment continues to deteriorate.
12
@Wendy Yes, global warming and other types of environmental degradation will create a tsunami of refugees which the global north will be totally incapable of accomodating. That is why we need to get serious about containing illegal immigration now, rather than waiting until draconian measures stop the flood.
1
@Jeremy Bounce Rumblethud Use climate change to justify a wall - maybe watch Sicario (a maze of undectable underground tunnels from Mexico to US)
1
Clue 6A in today's mini crossword was:
"Boil the ___ (try something impossible, per business jargon)"
Five letters, begins with 'O'
3
The fate of coral reefs foretells the fate of human populations if climate change is not successfully addressed.
21
@Cowbells No one can argue it’s fake news about the coral reefs!
1
Even a total shutdown of human CO2 emissions right now would not affect the warming, which will accelerate as arctic and sub-arctic permafrosts melt and generate astounding volumes of the 30x more potent Methane gas. Already, millions of sub-arctic lakes are bubbling away, venting methane.
Hothouse earth, soon.
(Not to mention the 10,000 other ways we are destroying the planet)
37
@William is correct. A recent article in Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, Oct 2018, entitled "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene"
by Will Steffen and 20 other authors is an excellent review (Overview) paper. Their focus is on "tipping points" ie interaction between effects and non-linear responses, ie chaos. Personally, I don't see the collective will to avoid "Hothouse Earth" We talk, but behavior is not changing quickly enough.
31
@Robert
Perhaps the super-rich actually want to ACCELERATE global warming, just to kill off 4 billion "poor" people?
Perhaps they think they can retreat behind high walls with private armies, or on luxury icebreakers (google it) to the Arctic?
8
Perhaps contrary to popular wisdom ...
Be afraid, be very afraid. That is a healthy initial response to what is increasingly undeniably happening here.
Only then will we perhaps be willing to make the sacrifices & common effort we, our children and all the other living things on this planet clearly require in order to preserve what we have left ...
Including our future as a viable civilization.
10
Red Mexican crabs washing ashore in Dana Point, CA, 2 years ago. Other species, including fish, moving north for cooler waters, are the "canaries in the coal mine."
10
@J Fender don't conflate the consequences of El Nino events, which lead to lots of warm water critters going up the California coast, with global warming, which is exacerbating the impact of the said El Ninos.
The coral bleaching events are much more a concern than lobster in Monterey. When the cold California Current returns to normal, those critters get taken care of.
5
When Americans reference their concern for "the unborn", we should all be referencing the multiple generations (and species) that we are sentencing to a hellish existence.
Any other use of that phrase is nothing more than foolish emotionalism.
58
It is clear that the acceleration curve of damage from CO2 emissions will outpace the innovation curve.
Time to cut emissions, tax carbon, and quadruple down on renewables.
It is likely that this alone will not be enough to save our species, but giving our ingenuity more time is the only hope.
Worse, our leaders are utterly failing in matching the urgency of the problem.
God help us.
15
Science is more often right than wrong. Even when wrong they admit their mistakes and study more until they get it right.
So if they predict all these things will happen then I would rather prepare. Besides they are likely talking about it on a global scale not necessarily in your specific local area.
19
@Bill Byrn,
I'm so glad that you explained that to me. Because in my "specific local area" none of the catastrophic changes I hear so much about are evident. Not at all.
There were more, wilder hurricanes when I was a kid in the 60s. There were intense, unbearable heat waves every summer. The South Shore barrier islands where I spent so many magical days throughout my life are remarkably unchanged; which is amazing since they're never more than a few feet above sea level. They should have been washed away years ago. In fact, the only noticeable change is on the western end of Fire Island where hundreds of acres of new land (called Democrat Point) have been created, naturally, in the last 30 years or so. If you're lucky you'll see a red fox or even a huge roost of black skimmers, one of my favorite birds. And harbor seals in winter.
@laurence - When Sandy's eastern edge was still beating the Atlantic, the storm was raising 20 foot waves here in Lake Michigan - 800 miles away.
So while you forget that, and the Halloween Blizzard and rainfall records and so on, here's an NYC City Map - of the areas Sandy flooded.
https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Environment/Sandy-Inundation-Zone/uyj8-7rv5
Three cheers for the cleanup of pollution sources and the establishment of more natural areas - it's helping that they're buying out homes and restoring wetlands so there won't be another flooded resident in the worst areas.
2
Where is the real evidence that rainier, more destructive hurricanes are becoming more common? More common than when? Got any data going back further than the satellite era? It simply does not help when claims like this are made for very complex weather phenomena, like cyclonic storms that form over oceans, any oceans, where much more than the average ocean temperature comes into play.
5
@Anna Base I'd love to find more data on that, but they NOAA site is down due to the government shutdown.
19
@Anna Base
Anna, physics doesn't rely on "historical" data.
We *observe* that storms intensify over warmer water, in real time. We also have the well established laws of thermodynamics, that predict this effect.
So, it is irrational to suggest that a storm passing over warmer water *isn't* more intense because of the warmer water.
This is very basic scientific reasoning, and that people don't understand that is an indictment of the poor science education in the USA.
12
@Anna Base
This are data supporting this. I would normally refer you to NOAA’s National Climate Data Center but our brilliant president has “proudly” shut down the government so the web site is not available.
2
We are the human race version 1.0. Future versions might figure out how to exist here sustainably, but version 1.0 has too many glitches, and environmentally speaking, is a failure.
I don't see this getting fixed. We are on an excellerating train toward a brick wall. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.
17
@Gerry
You are right. We are the only species that fouls its own nest.
5
It is true this isn't a very" upbeat" report for a couple of reasons. But it does provide a pure understanding of what is happening with the earths water supply. It is also true that we are the cause of global warming and because of this marine life is dying out. I suggest a solution but it also is a risk. We own many Aquariums, yes but helping wipeout the fish supply would be a big step to the downfall of the earths complete supply. Wiping out the fish, as we all know would also kill off anything that eats the fish. Cloning is also an action that can be taken as it has already. Whales, Turtles, and fish are washing up onto the
shore for so many reason its hard to articulate the real reason.
Not a very upbeat report, but what else to expect from those recent finds (except to further align and corroborate with earlier reports on this topic) when the steady trend points towards a pretty grim picture looming on the low horizon.
Worse at this tipping point, those in power to alleviate those ills at the large scale still rather uncritically concentrate their greedy efforts towards unrelated priorities.
In our times and on all levels, animal kingdom in its (once) infinite array pays a dire price for simply cohabiting with humankind, an alpha predator who past zeroing out all others species furthermore have no qualms imperiling the world that has sustained life for billions of years. Sadly, everything goes.
11
@jeanfrancois very well stated (sadly)
Marx might have been right after all. Systematic contradictions (i.e. infinite economic growth in a finite world) do seem to threaten the integrity of capitalism/humanity. He might even have been right that the only "solution" is a farfetched one in which humanity consciously reproduces itself. We have the science to get to the moon - I reckon we could probably house, clothe, feed, and care for ourselves without killing the planet upon which we all rely. But if you want to be a realist then look at the bunkers the 1%ers are building all over the world. They are actively betting on barbarism.
8
In today's newspaper alone, look at the planetary stories. There is one about 86% of Monarch butterflies have disappeared in a very short time. That is 6 out of 7, a stunning amount. When I think about it, I used to see them growing up in Louisiana a lot; they were ubiquitous. Granted, I was much younger, plus I moved to NY City for almost 30 years, and just came back 2 years ago. As a landscape contractor in Manhattan, we planted many Buddleia (technically Buddleja), or "Butterfly bush", the common name. They smell wonderful and really do attract butterflies by the hundreds. In the north, they typically grow to about 4 to 6', but we usually were planting them in containers. In the south, they can get triple that size and can be very invasive , like Buddleia davidii. You have to be careful, because they can screw up your ecosystem by attracting other insects, etc. that make them not a good choice. It all depends on the container size (on a penthouse terrace or rooftop garden in Manhattan, they won't invade), depending on the variety, size of the container and location. In the ground is another matter. Be careful. This is one thing I have loved about my trade; helping the planet by planting trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals. I did this for about 40 years, total. We were very careful about what we planted, and didn't use pesticide. We would order ladybugs (yes, you can), and get a small box overnight with 500 in them. Some spiders are good; praying mantis, too.
7
I know you guys won't post my comment if I include the first word that popped into my mind about this. Not good news.
9
Good luck trying to get the ignorant Republicans to embrace this situation.
28
@Jimmy 5 Fingers
Climate change deniers are a smaller group than they were in past years but with the world's #1 economy firmly in their grasp, and with much poverty lower on the list of nations, their power is increasing. Many have tried to argue on behalf of the planet; few have converted anyone. My personal record is dismal: zero of many. I have several conservative friends who are not in denial and who vote R. Ignorance is not limited to R voters, but the R's do seem to have a near monopoly on deniers.
2
So why is this earthshaking climate news buried way down on your website homepage?
34
There's our national emergency!!!!!!
36
We have known much of this for quite a while. Specifically, based on the data available in 2012, demonstrating a fairly monotonic rate of warming in the oceans since the late seventies, we have known that the oceans are absorbing heat at a rate of *** 4 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs PER SECOND ***.
This was not hard to figure out, and is so incontrovertible that it should end all arguments by climate change deniers that nothing is happening, it's not us, it's not bad, and whatever their next point of contention may be.
This study does mean it's even faster -- and worse -- than we thought.
Visit http://4hiroshimas.com/ for more info on how scientists determine those numbers, and for an animated, real-time counter showing exactly how fast the earth is warming (measured in atomic bombs!).
6
@Bob
Seriously Bob. You would not be here, nor would any other living thing for that matter, if the oceans (and other parts of the planet and atmosphere) did not absorb energy from the sun.
As for the ocean warming out of control. Between 2005 and 2017, the global network of thousands of Argo floats have measured an average temperature increase of the upper half of the ocean of 0.04 deg. C. That’s less than 0.004 C/year, an inconceivably small number.
We need to science this, not turn it into scary cartoons or a political weapon.
1
@Jim
"Seriously," Jim, .004C per year is an inconceivably *large* number, when you calculate the amount of energy required to produce it, given the specific heat of water.
Just sayin'...
3
@Jim "We need to science this." Pretty sure this has been sufficiently "scienced" by now, Jim.
What's the plan? Just gonna wait and wait for more data before acting?
4
Global warming is not real
@Cu soon By the end of this century almost all of the Arizona desert will have 150 - 160 as the daytime high, maybe even higher.
1
Irony or ignorance? Hard to tell.
1
@Cu soon
If you say so it must be true. Any other pearls of wisdom for the 99% who are unenlightened?
1
You've got to be careful when employing computer modeling and simulation (M&S). Your algorithm must be accurate or you get garbage out. If your input data is flawed, but your algorithm is good, you still get garbage out. All M&S and input data need to have validation and verification (V&V) published for others to review. Otherwise you're playing with fire. All M&S associated with climate should have the V&V available for review. If there's no V&V available, be prepared to have your research funding cut.
1
@Mike What really is the point of your comment?
9
@Mike
Thanks, but the models have been doing just fine.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
9
@jack The point being that, as the cited publication indicates, one must be inordinately careful with data collection and algorithm accuracy. Too many time in the climate debate we see revised output, not based on new data, but revised data. The M&S output becomes a moving target, hence credibility becomes a question. Different outputs doesn't equate to more accurate outputs. Where's the V&V?
2
Regarding climate impacts, faster than expected is now to be expected.
8
If donald trump truly wanted to protect the American people he would admit that climate change is real, and take action to prevent it. Also, he would admit that gun violence in America is rampant and push to enact sane gun laws immediately. He and the republican party will do neither. SAD!
10
But how does this affect me and the 52 places that I must go to this year? As long as nothing gets in the way of that, we're good/
24
The emerald ash borer killed over a thousand ash trees on my land, I don't need radiosondes or melting ice caps, just a tree that doesn't have an invasive fungus or bug to kill it. Still looking.
5
Yet another report of the consequences of irresponsible and greedy "adults" wantonly despoiling the planet, and leaving the mess for our children and grandchildren to cope with. We are rapidly burning down the only house that we have, while we are still in it.
13
Not only does this accelerate climate change, it kills off important food supplies for all sorts of species, including humans.
5
There is really only one solution for the world at this point, and that is for the US to cease all carbon emissions. (I leave it to the reader to think about how that is done.)
2
What about that huge amount of cold water coming from the little ice age heading to the equator? It is on the bottom of the ocean.
@Mike Mulligan Colder water is heavier water. They sink.
1
@Mike Mulligan
Sigh, the "little ice age" wasn't an ice age. And it wasn't global.
A graph of ocean temperature over time would have been a really nice addition to this article.
1
And Republicans are twiddling their thumbs and declaring a pretend National Emergency at the Southern Border while the planet burns up. Why stop at the Southern Border, how about a wall around Canada and a moat around the East and West Coasts.
9
Here lies a real crisis on our borders and every other countries borders and yet tRump squabbles at a self-serving, self generated fake, undefined and ill-informed immigration crisis' . It's time our government addresses this global issue. Our next congress and president should all be climate believers or eventually we'll all be swimming with the fishes
6
Let's face it, we are doomed. The only question is who dies and how soon. If you are rich and live in a rich country, you are like the meat-eating dinosaurs, you will survive longer than the rest.
10
Still another reason why I hope that I have no great grandchildren. I love children too much to want them to be born only to witness the beginning of human extinction.
6
Never mind that we treat the oceans like our toilet. Let’s never talk about that. Climate change, climate change, climate change...
1
Now, this is a real National Emergency.
6
Trump is saving me money. I no longer have to move south for warmer temperatures.
3
We’re going to need a bigger wall.
10
@JRM, You are correct. It is a mere trickle of humanity arriving today. Give it 20 years.
2
If Trump and the GOP think refugees at our border is a national crisis now, wait till the environment collapses.
6
Most important story of the day.
11
Completely agree. Instead the first five stories (on my phone app version of the NYT) are all Trump this, Trump that.
This problem cannot be solved as long as fossil fuels are artificially “cheap.” While there is still much damage lurking in the pipeline, there is still a chance to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, but only if we act immediately. We need a predictably rising, revenue neutral, fully refunded carbon fee and dividend with border carbon duties that harnesses the global economy to this task. Check out the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.
10
The biggest threat to global warming is animal agriculture. The desire to eat meat is warming our earth. There are many documentaries explaining this problem.
@Rocky, Actually the burning of fossil fuels is the single largest contributor to global warming.
8
Single largest contributor to the recently observed increased rate. The single largest contributor to global warming is the sun.
The veneer of civilization wears pretty thin after 5 days without food and gated communities will be no protection.
Humans often end up fighting over scarce resources and territory.
Before the big climate change wars really start perhaps we should “neutralise” the greedy right wing climate change denialist half wits who are orchestrating the avoidable climate change crisis.
Of course we should just protest and vote as if human lives depend on it but it is worth reflecting nevertheless that a bullet in time saves nine.
Climate change denialists should reflect on the fact that the best thing they will actually ever do in their lives is die.
They are unlikely to be alive to hear the deepest condemnations of their bitter legacy created by denying scientific facts and distorting the political process through their big money influence campaigns and propaganda.
13
@Richard Mitchell-Lowe
Climate change denialists should reflect on the fact that the best thing they will actually ever do in their lives is die.
Yeah, but before they die, they will have reproduced themselves unto the fourth generation: two beget five, five beget twenty, twenty beget 80, etc. My hairdresser, a huge Trump fan, has 17 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren, and she's two years older than me (who has zero anything). It's all in the begetting; that's where the real problem lies.
Forget the wall; this is the national emergency.
5
The most dangerous threat from sea-level rise is war. Many countries have low-lying coastlines (Bangladesh, China, central America, Pacific islands), in addition to Western countries like Great Britain, Holland, France, Scandinavia). When sea levels rise to the point of driving people away from their homes (think Bangladesh), these people will have to migrate upland. To India, China, Burma, Russia, etc. These countries will not want to accept the migrants (for economic, population, cultural, and religious reasons), and war will ensue.
10
@Jay
I agree with these points and I think we should ask
ourselves, what would our own country do if Americans on the coastlines are driven from their homes due to sea-level rise. Is FEMA prepared for this? Do we have a plan? We are fortunate that we have some states that are not densely populated. Would people be relocated there? How would those states react? So many questions.
2
@Jay I agree with you entirely. By the end of this century we may have several BILLION climate refugees looking for somewhere to go, and people in the higher elevations wanting to build a wall to keep them out...
4
@Jay There are all kinds of wars. Climate change -- or more specifically, drought -- is what caused the Syrian civil war that lead to mass migration into Europe, which is now undergoing a war for its post-WWII soul, as its neo-Nazi dregs start to awaken and dismantle the social contract.
Wow, how could IPCC scientists be so far off? Or are the scientists in the new study way wrong?
So much for the science being settled.
1
@agpb
As predicted the Earth is warming rapidly, ice is melting and sea level is rising.
The basics are well understood, we're just refining things like the rate and amplitude of impacts.
8
@agpb
Scientists are making do with inadequate resources.
The GOP makes absolutely certain of that with their budget cuts and hostility towards scientists doing climate change research.
So you are doing the GOP "party toady act" very well today by now claiming that the scientific results are "not settled" because scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the changes.
Right wing stupidity apparently knoweth no bounds.
1
I wonder what the reaction of the Republicans will be:
1) Stick their fingers in their ears and hum real loud.
2) Argue that dumping more pollution into the oceans will decrease their temperature.
3) Build the wall.
4) All of the above.
3
It doesn’t affect them. They are rich.
Time for action without waiting for governments and politicians to throw money at the problem
2
There’s nothing I, or any individual, can do about that. Only Nation-States can try to deal with this situation. Personally, I’m tired of all the scary climate change news you love to terrify us with. If I could make a difference, I would.
@John L. Barton
Well ... who did you vote for?
See, there *is* something you can do.
2
We have to force ourselves to live slower. Stretch out our resources. basically be like a tree, or, boil every creature in the sea, and die.
Now we know what the “deer caught in the headlights” feels like.
2
Clearly you haven't been paying attention. All of this heat is just a Chinese hoax. Or so The Almighty Trump, the god of the right, has declared. Clearly those Chinese are very good at their hoaxing and are able to generate actual hot water in the process.
4
To the New York Times: my post should have read,…
As many people have said, we may be doomed already. Unfortunately, I believe this to be true. As the New York Times article published in the Times Magazine states, we have all the data we needed collected during 1979 through 1989 to tell us we were killing the planet.
I don't think people understand that the Earth is not a renewable resource. While I think the human race, with a sad heart I say this, is doomed to extinction sooner than later, the Earth will probably bounce back like it always has, only homo sapiens will be around to enjoy it.
If you're interested in reading the article in the Times magazine, I inserted the link below.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html?emc=edit_ty_20181205&nl=opinion-today&nlid=7318687120181205&te=1
1
Now THIS is a REAL national emergency!
3
Too many people, too many clamoring for middle-classdom.
There was an Onion article years ago, prescient as usual: https://www.theonion.com/scientists-look-one-third-of-the-human-race-has-to-di-1819573235
Driving slightly less won't do it, slight increases in utilizing solar energy is a drop in the bucket against exponential increases in population. So how do we want to do this?
2
@Clotario Perfect.
Levity aside this is exactly why nothing can be done. A vague threat of uncertain magnitude at some indeterminate future time is never going be tradeable against a definite immediate cost.
So if it's death right now (or a gas tax, which for many people would be the same or worse), versus whatever some time in the future, it's going to be "whatever" no matter how bad that "whatever" actually turns out to be. Eat, drink and be merry!
Thank you to the NYT's for covering this story. My one quibble is the placement. Isn't the potential destruction of earth's atmosphere worthy of a leading front page headline?
3
We have reached the boiling point, eh?
The end times, perhaps, as predicted by those Christians?
Fake science. Democratic propaganda. Debunked by the Coal Industry. Pooh poohed by the Energy Lobby. Nothing that Make America Great Again "Trump-gut" science can't fix.
Pessimistic reporting like this saps the economy, needlessly scares hard working Americans, smells like Globalist alarmism.
The bible tells us we have dominion over the planet. Why, because God wants us to exploit it. He will save us... in collusion with His anointed on earth: the Donald.
6
This conclusion and article are nonsense. The oceans have 3500 times the specific heat, i.e., heat absorption, of the atmosphere. A simple analogy that even readers of the NY Times might understand would be this. Imagine that the earth's atmosphere suddenly warmed by 1 degree in one year. That one degree of warming would take 3500 years to raise the average ocean temperature by 0.5 degrees. Apparently these "scientists" and the author of this article are scientifically illiterate when it comes to the laws of thermodynamics.
1
Replying to bob
Hey, bob, you sound like a genius! Good thing the oceans can only be warmed by the atmosphere. If solar energy were somehow able to affect them directly, we could be in a heap of trouble!
Whoa! Maybe all those scientifically illiterate “scientists” have stumbled across something important!
3
@bob You honestly don't think scientists understand thermodynamics? You clearly don't understand specific heat.
1
At a time when we have so many critical problems to deal all progress is blocked by the obstructionist in the White House and sycophants in the Senate.
Our government isn't just failing to institute new programs to address emerging threats to our environment and the survival of our coastal cities, our government is shut down.
This administration is committed to undoing any progress we have made toward remedying man-made environmental damage. We are sliding backward, not assuming a leading role in addressing the crises that will result from ocean warming.
We cannot just sit on our hands and watch this catastrophe play out, but must do what we can immediately. We must change this administration now, while there is still some hope of mitigating this unfolding disaster.
162
"We cannot just sit on our hands and watch this catastrophe play out, but must do what we can immediately. We must change this administration now, while there is still some hope of mitigating this unfolding disaster."
I wish there were solid reasons for optimism, but regardless of administration I fear the die has been cast. Indeed, yes we should try, and try in increasingly clever and serious ways, but we're simply mammals doing what we're gonna do. Are we not on some level destined to spoil the commons?
15
@George Ladshaw
"... we're simply mammals doing what we're gonna do."
Fortunately we are special mammals, and rather complicated ones at that. So, although we are already spoiling the commons, more and more of us are becoming aware of the need to undo te spoiling. Moreover, we haven't yet go a scientific elaboration of Shakespeare's "Hope springs eternal in the human breast". Furthermore, it's now only a few days since the new Democratic majority in the US House has begun to assert itself.
9
@dutchiris
"This administration is committed to undoing any progress we have made toward remedying man-made environmental damage."
It does SEEM that this administration is so committed. But truth is that it is committed to getting votes from a base that is ignoring relevant data. So, although it IS true that "We are sliding backward, not assuming a leading role in addressing the crises that will result from ocean warming", what you and I can do, Duchiris, is find the means to educate that base so that it does not re-elect shameless 'orangutans' and con artists. Then our "hope of mitigating this unfolding disaster" will be based on truly practical foundations.
4
For a list of global warming solutions and estimates of costs or in some cases cost savings look here
https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
Refrigerants and methane much worse than CO2.
For climate science, modeling, ocean physics, I have enough relevant education and analytical skills to know that most lay people are not going to understand the intricacies of the effect of greenhouse gases on the temperature of the atmosphere or the ocean.
Like most complex topics, we have a cadre of highly capable scientists, computer scientists, and other specialists who can help advance our understanding.
This article points out how carefully scientists pursue and examine data both old and new and try to compare it to current analytical models.
Analytical models today are vastly more sophisticated than say 2005 due to rapid advances in computer and algorithm capabilities. The earth is huge and spherical coordinates like the earth's atmosphere and oceans have complex equations. Like weather models, climate models are getting better every year. Also satellite data and buoys are being used to validate models, data is now available for many decades with better sensors.
Re Gulf Stream, there is evidence that there is more to global thermo-haline circulation than just a few streams, so therefore the collapse of the Gulf Stream is no longer considered as tragic and imminent as before.
Google is your friend, but do pick good sources or at least a good variety of sources.
6
@Innovator
Surface waters are warmer and hence less dense than in the depths of the ocean. So it takes a lot of energy to turn the ocean over (takes around 1,000 years).
Now as the surface warms faster than the depths it gets harder to turn the ocean over, so it gets more strongly stratified.
Nutrient-rich waters from the depths which feed important fisheries like the anchoveta and sardines slow their journey to the surface. And oxygen-rich surface waters slow their journey to the depths and the ocean turns to desert.
There's also the problem of fresh meltwater from the ice sheets which has been slowing Antarctic bottom water formation and the AMOC.
3
@Innovator why would the Gulf Stream collapse?
@bob The gulf stream is powered by the difference in temperature between the north and the south. When the north (attic) is heating up faster, the temperature difference decrease hen the slowing down of the gulf stream. Warm enough in the attic can stop the gulf stream altogether.
3
We just got back from Kauai, Hawaii and from Koh Tao Thailand. We went diving in both places 20 years ago. It was beautiful back then, a technicolor world under the sea with moray eels, parrot fish, turtles...
Now all, and I mean ALL the coral is dead, all gray and brown. The same places we dove years ago in pristine conditions are now destroyed, dead, kaput.
Sad.
25
@ETD2072
Yeah. I did a lot of diving in the 80s. Then 20 years later I dove in Bali and there was more plastic than fish in the waters there.
6
All we need to do is get all 7.7 billion people around the globe to agree their quality of life must diminish, thereby slowing or reversing the growth of economic activity that it is at the root of carbon pollution. Should be a cinch.
3
Stop building war machines and turn the budget to space exploration and negative carbon tech?
1
There are parts of the system that could already be out of our hands. And those parts are related to the ocean. Because we know that we’ve already put a lot of heat content into the ocean.
In the case of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, regarding the marine-based ice which is very sensitive to ocean temperatures—West Antarctica 3.3m, East Antarctica 19m—we are likely to end up being committed to some response of the ice sheet to the heat that has already gone into the ocean.
Ocean temperature likely controls Antarctic Ice Sheet mass, according to the glaciologist Richard Alley.
It's -50 degrees C on parts of Antarctica, warm it up to -45 and who cares? But it is at the melting point at the coast where the floating and thinning ice shelves provide less and less friction constraining ice sheet flow.
An increase of just 1 degree C destroyed the ice shelf constraining the flow of the Jakobshavn Isbræ Glacier on Greenland and such an increase is a big insult to an ice shelf almost anywhere on the planet.
The Antarctic Peninsula has lost 8-10 ice shelves over the last 25-30 years. When the Larsen B ice shelf broke up there over a 5 week period in 2002 the glaciers behind sped up by a factor of 6 to 8 and are still flowing at that accelerated rate today because the cork was removed.
If we sped up all of Antarctica’s glaciers by a factor of 6.5 we’d have 4m per century sea level rise, roughly what occurred for four centuries 14,600 years ago.
5
Global warming is occurring at a much faster pace than life on the planet can adapt to. The last great extinction, the Paleocene period, whose cause mimics much of our present situation, took thousands of years to warm by 5 to 8C, and even then the warming process occurred too quickly for most of the flora and fauna to adapt.
By contrast, we are looking at a warming process that, without drastic action, will reach similar levels of warming in one to two centuries. The only positive to our situation is that our warming is due primarily to fossil fuel burning, which can be reduced.
So, Pogo is right - we have met the enemy and it is us. Do we humans take what are minor steps in our lifestyles, or do we destroy most of life on the plane?
18
...so here is something we can all do, starting today, regardless of governmental policies: eat fewer animal products. Go vegan. Go vegetarian, pesca-tarian, or vegetarian lite. Individually, our biggest impact on the environment and on global warming all goes back to animal product consumption, in profoundly dramatic ways.
11
This is simply not true. Global warming is caused by fossil fuels.
Animals we eat produce methane which I believe heats more than other carbon emission? That and the methane we produce.
Reduce population. Carbon storage. Carbon vacuums. Recycling. Would require us to stop chasing shadow enemies and start living together. Less walls more cooperation.
1
Ocean currents and warming are related to the massive introductionof freshwater... while the poles get warmer the tropical parts of the ocean get saltier. Potential collapse may occur but in 2005 it was only thought to be a 5% possibility. The collapse of the Amazon rainforest will contribute greater and quicker. Loss of these forests which essentially create their own precip and potent transpiration cycles that ultimately aid in carbon sequestering will factor more in creating warmer climate. All the data concise and true with scientific modelling up to 2005 is all in Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers.
Whatever.... humans have augmented massive change, mother nature can only take so much. To have that super high balancing act disrupted, with all the world eco-eccentricities
on a thin thread...that is going to be a terrible catastrophic price to pay for abusing all the convenience of a modern world.
To look at the vastness of the planet you wouldn't have thought it possible.
1
While so far the majority of sea level rise has been from thermal expansion, recently the ice sheets have taken over as the single largest contributor to sea level rise.
Of the 130m of sea level rise during the last deglaciation, only about 2m of that was thermal expansion, and the mountain glaciers are gone before they add half a meter, so the only thing on the planet which can deliver large, fast sea level rise is ice sheets.
At the current rate of acceleration of ice sheet mass loss of 44Gt/y2 we get 78cm of sea level rise by 2100. Add in 20-30cm for thermal expansion and mountain glaciers and we're already on pace for around a meter of sea level rise by then.
The problem is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which is a threshold system. Once Thwaites Glacier there gets off of its stabilizing sill, perhaps in a few decades, it can take the whole ice sheet in decadal time scales or less and that's around 3.3m of sea level rise from there alone.
6
This is not a local problem. Even if you could get US to agree to drastic changes (much more than Paris), how will you get China, Russia, Brazil, India, etc., to agree? Whatever changes we make will be seen 50 years from now. Hope not in any agreement because it won't come. Rather, it will be some type of technology that will make the difference. If this fails than look for the worst. If you wish to know what that is than reflect on history and human nature.
2
If the oceans keep warming up, then why is it that the rate of ocean level rise (~2mm/yr) is the same as that of 150yrs ago, according to tide gauge data? These data indicate that no accelerated warming has occurred, and that the rate of warming is the same now as it was when the Earth was rebounding from the Little Ice Age. But who you gonna believe? Actual 150yr data, or a computer model?
1
@Carol Gebert
The trend in sea level rise doesn't bode well for coastal areas.
1870-1924 0.8mm per year
1925-1992 1.9mm per year
1993-2012 3.1mm per year
Currently around 4.4mm per year according to this paper. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104007/meta
When you graph the above it looks very much like the beginning of a very non-linear upward curve.
Graph of sea level rise through 2012 https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png
Graph of post glacial sea level rise, http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/post-glacial_sea_level.png , note the curve at Meltwater Pulse 1A.
Ice sheet mass loss, notice the lines curve downwards indicating acceleration.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/IceMass.png
23
@Carol Gebert. February, 2018:
Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.
10
Carol Gebert asks "Who are you gonna believe?"
The short answer, Carol, is those who back up their claims with citations and links to respected sources. Unfortunately you didn't do that, so I won't be believing you.
8
It's strange that this isn't the first thing on the news every night, the lead story in every morning paper, and the first question at every press conference. Humans are changing the environment so that it is becoming increasingly unfriendly to human life--well, and to a lot of other species, too. And this change is rapid and accelerating.
If this all were happening in a 1950s movie, there would be crowds surging toward the White House demanding immediate action, and people at town meetings shouting at their duly elected representatives to do something, and great congresses of the world's scientists discussing how to *immediately* solve the problem. The oil magnate who said it was all a hoax would be the recognizable villain of the thing. As he stands in the town square drunkenly denouncing the precipitate actions of the mob caught up in the anti-capitalist environmental hoax, a young mother would sweep her sleepy-headed child away to safety!
So, how did we elect this guy and his group to govern us, and how is it that populist energy and rage are being trained not on the causes of the problem, or the impediments to its solution--but on the very scientists and the media reporting it?
43
@Michael Joseph There is a one word response to the reason you may not see it on the news every night. It is Capitalism!
5
@Michael Joseph
It's a great observation that climate change should be the lead story on every newspaper and news broadcast but ask who "owns" the news.
Rupert Murdoch - an arch conservative and enemy of the common good through Fox News and a raft of other global brands - is enormously influential. There is a profound anti-trust issue associated with the Murdoch propaganda empire and it should be broken up.
Even if a media organisation is not owned by a climate change denialist like Murdoch, their dependence on advertising revenues from big business and their focus on market share ratings means many are effectively vulnerable to being persuaded to suppress the climate change story by big-money influencers.
Of course conservatives the world over attack the remaining 'free to air public broadcasting' services with the budgetary axe whenever they can because there is nothing so embarrassing as the facts.
It's actually hilarious that there is a right wing grievance industry arising around 'anti-conservative media and search engine bias' - somehow they expect their line of lies and distortion to be afforded the same status as fact-based information.
8
How many evangelical scientists can you name?
2
As any science-literate person knows, because of the uncertainty that always exists in the data, scientists always underestimate change. So of course it's happening much faster than the official prediction.
13
@Jay David...Wait a minute. You're telling us NOT science-literate people that because there is so much uncertainty in their data, scientists routinely falsely report their research findings to the public? Not only is the science NOT settled, the science is bogus? You make Scientists sound like a bunch of politicians. Can't trust anything that comes out both sides of their mouths. In the meantime, Earth is being destroyed. That's just great. Thanks, Science.
Our species is amazing, but we're an anthropogenic mass extinction event.
Too many of us, consuming too much. It's that simple.
We're on track to extinguish the biosphere and all the majestic innocent species who evolved here with us since the last mass extinction.
Our hubris, lack of conscience and empathy, and our belief that everything on this planet is mere fodder for us to exploit will lead to the worst crime in the universe: planetary ecocide.
102
@Steve Davies...I think you're being a little overly anthropocentrically dramatic with the planetary ecocide stuff. The Sun's ultimate demise in a few billion years is going to wipe out Earth no matter what we humans do. That is, if the collision with Andromeda doesn't do us in first. Or, if we don't pass through another supernova particle plume that blocks out solar radiation and turns us into Snowball Earth Redux. Or, as you suggest, if our obsession with global fornication doesn't finally vindicate Malthus. Who knows, euthanasia of our species might be the least painful of our potential futures.
5
Yes, but let’s not pretend other species are innocent either. Evolution is perennially short-sighted.
IPCC estimates are always overly optimistic and each round they are revised to show matters much worse than previously thought. This is because they rely on scientific studies which, by the time they make it to publication, are already way out of date, in the face of exponentially increasing warming. Also, their models usually account for maybe one or two of the 20+ identified feedback loops that contribute to warming. Finally, IPCC reports are subject to political censorship by each of the contributing countries, so they are not truly scientific in nature. We are headed to a dead planet, and much faster than the media or politicians dare acknowledge.
16
Sadly, as a mere recreational scuba diver, I can tell you that. You can feel warmer streams in places, and the coral is not good. Swim to a more protected spot or somewhere that gets cooler water from deeper areas, and the coral is perfect.
13
It may be helpful to keep in mind that the few dissenting “legitimate” climate scientists in the global warming debate anchor their positions in the difficulty of using computer models to accurately forecast the effects of human activity on our climate. They have used the error factors in the models to sew confusion and doubt about the legitimacy of the difficult and complex work done by other climate experts. The fact that older models seriously underestimated the rate of warming of our oceans should convince us that the dissenting voices are not helpful in addressing the problem – we need to listen to the overwhelming majority of scientists and hedge our bets by doing much more to save the planet than even they recommend. The fact that the results of new computer models of changing ocean temperatures and overall climate are more aligned should support our reliance on climate scientists and give us confidence that we must pressure the politicians and citizens of the world to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other contributors to global warming. As others have said – this is clearly a matter of life and death and we are running out of time.
17
Keep in mind that the dissenting climate scientists are largely on the payroll of big energy.
7
Preaching to the choir. No belief required!
The only true “fix” for this and all of the other evidence of climate change is to first realize and recognize that we are only discussing the symptoms here, not the problem. The disease is massive overpopulation and demographic shifts in the world which drive the pollution, energy demands etc. which impact the world’s climate. Yes, science must do what it can to alleviate the symptoms, but ignoring the ultimate cause, as it seems every article I read, every treaty that’s signed, every frightening speech and presentation that’s given ignores, underscores the true hopelessness of the situation. And yes, somewhat ironically, this does lead us all back to the scores of unfortunate people trying to get into the United States, against whom our president wants to build his wall. So to all the (appropriately) snarky comments that the wall is going to solve this problem, the irony is that the wall is very much a symptom of the real climate problem.
7
@Joel Delman
Claiming that the base problem is population makes me wonder if you are a climate change denialist in disguise.
We are not going to reduce population in the next 10 years to solve the climate crisis. So your thesis may inspire people to yet more inaction.
The base problem is our choices of technology platforms for energy and transport and our agricultural practices.
The use of oil and coal are choices and given that the sun deposits on Earth in one hour more energy than human beings use in a year, we have an obvious alternative energy source. We just need to make the changes needed to use it.
The changes we need to make in agricultural practices will also mean that we abandon certain environmentally costly approaches in favour of more sustainable options.
Please read this article for an indication of the scale of annual food waste and the environmental cost of meat and dairy products:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste
It will give you some hope that we can in fact make changes to agriculture to sustain the Earths population.
15
The disease in question is addiction to fossil fuels, which is now an epidemic of tragic proportions, and is more dramatically ignored by the mainstream media than most other life-threatening diseases...
4
Even if we stopped gas emission today we are still going to have a rough ride ahead. I’m so sick of our society and it’s inability to work together. And I’m tired of the propaganda from all sides against climate change.
If you add a chemical to the environment there is always a consequence.
17
To those that are blaming climate deniers, you are not wrong, but please ask yourself what solutions have been proposed by our leaders who believe in the scientific consensus on climate change. Very little has been offered that is of large enough scale to make a difference.
While Republicans have been denying climate change, Dems have been proposing tiny incremental solutions that will not solve this massive problem. The outcome is disaster either way.
Demand that your Democratic representatives in the House and Senate support the Green New Deal! Very few have done so.
23
@Nick
"...any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies..."
That's in the letter today to Congress from the Green New Deal. Sorry. That's a bad plan, however well intended.
You just can't hand wave your way around the fact that there is no credible storage solution that will allow such a narrow definition of allowable energy resources.
100% carbon free should be the goal. That's impossible enough.
4
@M Monahan I agree with you, but since The Green New Deal is still a proposal and not a bill, there is still time to try to make it even better. It is not like there is another better idea being seriously considered by anytone in Congress.
2
@Nick
Higher levels of education for girls and women has a very strong impact on (1) later first pregnancy and (2) lower total number of children per mother. Higher education levels generally raises per capita GDP as well, which is nice, and also is pretty strongly correlated to higher ratio of GDP to energy use, which is also helpful. Generally, if I were to pick one single factor to mitigate climate change, it would be: Education of girls. That also happens to be a factor that NGOs funded by wealthy societies can influence in developing societies where carbon emissions are rising fastest.
4
This is an issue that could benefit from a $5.7 billion investment, don't you think?
260
That’s not nearly enough.
In other news, the Republicans continue to roll back environmental protection rules, allowing higher carbon emissions into the atmosphere from industries and vehicles. Sad!
This is an urgent concern with immediate negative consequences.
If the Dems win the WH and keep some control in Congress in 2020, they could reverse damage done by Republican changes to taxes, ACA, education, etc. But, the Dems will not be able to reverse harm done now to the environment and climate. Only time and Mother Nature can, hopefully, fix that damage.
On a personal note:
I see the current effects of global warming literally in my backyard. Over the past 10 years, I’ve seen more than 30 horizontal feet of the bluff near me fall into the ocean due to heavier storms and higher tide levels. I’ve seen homeowners lose land and structures into the ocean. I’ve seen homeowners spend millions of dollars constructing barriers to keep the ocean from undermining the land their home sits on to save their homes. This is new. In the prior 30 years, barely 3-4 feet of the bluff fell into the ocean.
Yes, these homeowners are wealthy. They can afford these drastic measures. What about the other people living on coastlines that aren’t wealthy enough to protect their homes and livelihoods?
40
The Gulf Stream conveyer belt process must be one of the geographically closest heat transport processes which will experience dramatic changes sooner than expected.
5
We’re running out of time. We must make the elimination of greenhouse gases the number one political issue. Please contact your representatives and ask them to support the Green New Deal.
About one seventh of the world’s population’s primary source of protein is dependent upon the oceans. It’s hard to imagine what is going to happen when a billion people begin migrating in order to survive.
31
The oceans currently supply about 20% of the world's protein from fish. Some coastal populations rely heavily on fish as a primary food source. Messing around with the oceans could cause massive food shortages for over one billion people. This isn't a situation where they will just eat something else. There is nothing else.
You think we have a migration problem now? Add in entire regions that will become too hot for human habitation with coastal areas that have been flooded out and then couple these with loss of food stocks from the sea, and we will soon see certain politicians wanting to build a wall around our entire nation.
This what the future holds for us if we don't do anything to stop global warming. All life came from the sea and the sea may have the last word about who lives where.
134
@Bruce Rozenblit then let them eat beef!
3
Solar
Wind
Biomass
Tidal
Hydro
Geothermal
There's a way out of manmade fossil-fuel mess.
Gas Oil Pollution is a giant Greed Over People suicide pill.
Good people don't vote for science-denying Republicans.
D to go forward; R for suicide.
160
@Socrates
D for Drive (your electric car); R for Reverse! Logically.
3
@Socrates Biomass? Not so fast.
Wake up, Socrates,
Nuclear power is carbon-free, and infinitely more energy-dense than wind and solar. What’s more, it’s statistically the safest, with the lowest mortality rate of all energy sources (geothermal and tidal are marginal and experimental), and nuclear plant construction uses fewer resource materials, while outlasting solar panels and wind turbines three to one, or more.
On the clean energy horizon, new reactors, known as Generation 4, utilize liquid fluoride and molten salt technology and are designed to be walk-away safe and proliferation resistant. What’s more, these can run on spent fuel from conventional reactors, and breeder types can even produce their own fuel, and with minimal waste.
What’s not to like? If there’s hope of helping the planet while maintaining a decent lifestyle, the solution lies here.
5
The window of opportunity to avert a global catastrophe seems to be closing more and more rapidly. I can't think of a higher priority than finding the resolve to embrace the Paris Climate Accord. Even then, more changes will be necessary, but the price gets higher with each missed opportunity.
David Brower, founder of the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations, is generally credited with insight that “we don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” I hope this doesn't become out epitaph.
69
@Ron
Or, even worse, "we steal it from our children" because what remains is not worth returning.
5
We need to get rid of Capitalism.
3
@Ron
The Sierra Club was founded by John Muir, not David Brower. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club)
I didn't bother fact checking your other claims.
2
Carbon dioxide pollution includes ocean acidification along with global warming. Someday it might be impossible for anything with bones or hard shells to live in the sea.
The single most useful thing most individuals can do to fight this is to vote Democrat. Without the political will to do what must be done not enough will be done in time. All will suffer.
58
@Richard Schumacher
Actually, the single most useful thing is to evaluate each candidate instead of blindly following self-serving partisan advice like "don't think for yourself, vote for my party".
6
@agpb
Sorry but I can't agree with you on this at this point because even if a republican candidate claims to take the human caused warming climate issue seriously, he or she will be under contact pressure to vote with other republicans against these concerns. And quite frankly, if after all that's happened someone still calls themselves a republican today, there's no way I would vote for that person. And since these are the only two viable parties we've got right now, that leaves voting straight democratic.
11
If Republican Party will become more progressive than the Democrats on environmental issues in 2020. Then you bet I will vote for GOP.
6
The same enthusiasm we had in the 2018 midterms is going to have to be present in 2020 if we are to elect public servants who take climate change seriously. In the meantime, municipal elections are this spring. Does your mayor believe in environmental sustainability? Has your town adopted environmental policies such as maintaining an fleet of electric city vehicles, investing in alternative energy and implementing ways to conserve energy? We MUST think globally when we act locally, because the consequences are coming sooner than we think.
69
I trust the Republicans will understand in a few years when Florida and the other red southeast states start to flood and we in New England plan to build a wall to keep them out as they migrate north...
316
@Tom No time like the present!
9
@Tom In addition, if a Democrat is President when this occurs, cut off FEMA funding to the flooding, red, coastal states for not properly maintaining the height of the shoreline with rakes and shovels.
27
@Tom When Orlando real estate agents start selling beach front property, expect a caravan from Florida.
7
Our Caspian Sea is now averaging a higher average temperature in the Winter than it does in the city.
9
The coral reefs are dying. The cause of this is rising ocean temperatures. Perhaps Donald Trump and his cult need to take a series of science classes and educate themselves.
28
@susan
If only that would work. On the other hand, there's the old saying about leading horses to water and another one about 'none so blind as those who will not see'.
We have to address those in power who are willfully blind and determined to ignore not just science but simple observation, decency and sense.
4
@susan And the krill are dying. The Japanese had better eat all the whales they can, because without krill there are no whales.
3
What did Exxon know, and when did they know it? Will tomorrow's generation put oil company executives in prison?
16
@Alex
Yes, though not just oil companies, chemical companies pollute streams and rivers, and all waters in streams and rivers eventually end up in the seas.
At some point in the near future humans must accept that we are the problem. It is not rocket science to figure out that as long as humans keep reproducing at the rate we are and using earths resources in an uncontroled and irresponable manner our world will shake us off at some point in the near future..
Only with world wide action will human kind avoid extinction that is clear to anyone paying attention.
20
@Rjnick
Human population will decline involuntarily as a result of our refusal to reduce the population voluntarily. 11 billion people by 2100 are projected. Humans migrate when there is a problem. Expect lots more migration by 2100.
2
@Rjnick
What is your solution to our reproduction rate? Killing third-born males? Opening death camps?
1
@agpb
As we have seen in developed countries the birth rate is lower. Once 2nd and 3rd world countries have access to birth control and more advancements for women you will see birth rates lower.
Its called progress which I would hope everyone would want.
6
It is incumbent on all of us on this planet to do all we can to mitigate the impact of a warming Earth.
We must vote for those politicians who are not in the pockets of oil and coal lobbyists. Appointing a coal lobbyist to lead the EPA for example is Trump’s hubris in full display again.
How the GOP can support him is beyond me.
Our shortsighted approach to our world is creating a problem that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will not be able to solve.
Shame on us all.
44
@Rocco Capobianco Our "grandchildren's grandchildren" might not even be around if the coming climate catastrophe advances at the pace scientists are now predicting. This is no longer a matter of "2100" or beyond--it is happening now, right now, in the 1st half of the 21st century.
We are all witnessing it, year after "record high" year. And yet humans seem to be hopelessly unable to face the facts and do anything to try to reverse or at least ameliorate the situation.
And that is tragic. Consider all of the technological advances over the past few centuries-- the steam engine, cars, electricity, telephone, phonograph, photography, television, etc. -- and then the extremely fast-paced digitalization over the past couple of decades, with personal computers, the Internet, cell phones, smart phones, tablets, etc. etc. etc.
We have sent people to the moon and into space, we have explorers sending back images from the farthest corners of space -- and yet we are unable or unwilling to care for the only home we have. Just think what could be achieved if all the innovative energy on the planet were focused on somehow reversing this terrible trajectory (via carbon capture etc.). I personally fear that humanity is doomed.
4
Politicians, business people, lobbyists and propaganda news organisations who deny facts and obstruct necessary initiatives to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions need to be treated as terrorists advocating a dangerous and false ideology and committing crimes against humanity to achieve their ideological objectives - increasing personal net worth at the expense of future generations.
Responsible people in all domains of human activity need to recognise that our complex civilization is predicated on stability that is being destroyed by human greenhouse gas emissions. It is essential that we use democracy to strip climate change denialists of their political influence.
26
Climate Deniers will be on the wrong side of history and may they be judged accordingly. The roll back of environmental laws is criminal.
91
@Dan Thomas. There may be no humans to produce the history. We may leave some geological markers for any intelligent beings that follow our species.
3
No one, not even the best scientists or computer modeling can predict all of the ways in which climate change is going to change Earth's ecosystems. We are watching nature change in the Anthropocene which has begun, instantaneously on the geologic time scale.
My greatest fear is pandemic outbreaks of diseases and the mega blooms of eukaryotic organisms. We have already seen the start.
14
Congrats to the the Koch Bros and their alternative reality ilk of climate change deniers.
The families of the the insatiable greed crew, pushing out decades of propaganda from the petrochemical industry, will now get to see in their lifetimes the heedless destruction their ascendants have wrought on Mother Nature.
38
This is the true “National Emergency” — a global emergency — and should be reported and seen as such. Alas, we rearrange the deck chairs as time runs out.
118
@Ray
well put
2
I don't know what it's going to take to get the republican party to stop playing politics with our lives. We are destroying our own planet.
14
After all, water does boil faster if you put a lid on the pot. Our CO2 lid does not allow the ocean to cool in balance with normal solar warming. Folks will believe the science only when it gets intolerable, like the proverbial frog in the pot slowly heated to the boil, or Miami or New Orleans floods year-round. Darn those Laws of Thermodynamics — something our world-class autocrat can't overrule by executive order!
321
@MCV207 As it is, my area of SC has been flooded since the hurricane last fall and no end is in sight. I get flood warnings every day. Roads to a favorite walking area are blocked, because the river is flooding ten miles from the ocean.
23
@MCV207
"...can't overrule by executive order."
Nor would he read anything about those Laws (just as he has not read anything about US Laws prior to running for president) and if he were to agree to read them, I believe he'd be incapable of understanding.
As I previously remarked at least twice in this venue, I am convinced that he has a serious dyslexia that stands in the way of functioning as a literate, educated member of society. Were he so inclined a competent assessment with prescribed interventions for the problem might still help.
Would he be so inclined? Fat chance! (or to quote myself again from previous postings: When pigs fly!)
8
@Joan Bee
I've known many dyslexics who are highly educated, creative, and intellectually curious. Dyslexia is a cognitive quirk that interferes with deciphering and reproducing symbols conventionally, not an intellectual disability that prevents sophisticated thought once the data has been processed. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump had profound cognitive disorders, but that's the least of his defects of mind, intellectually and psychologically.
20
Sadly ironic that Trump considers declaring a fictitious national emergency to build an unnecessary wall on the southern border. Climate change is a true global emergency, yet he doing everything he can to make it worse.
Here's a (partial) solution for both: Tell Trump he can build as many sea walls around our coastal communities as he wants to keep out the (terrorist, criminal, drug importing) rising sea.
22
And, the California fires contributed to the carbon load. More climate issues, more fires. Relieved to see others are as concerned as I am.
7
...but building a wall is a crisis.
5
But the Wall will surely save us, right?
9
Look at the bright side. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.
...and against these increasingly perilous rapidly unfolding scientific facts, our brilliant leader of the radical right ignoramuses toadies, Mr.Trump, is naming a fossil fuel lobbyist to head the EPA.
51
Our president said this is “fake news,” and he never lies. Just ask him.
9
ladies and gentlemen: the real national security threat.
28
Official White House response: zzzzzzzzzz
5
Does this mean that the Times will stop acting as if the Democrat's corporate-friendly response to climate change is adequate - or will the editors just require that the Dems do better than the Republicans, who don't even acknowledge that climate change exists?
14
@Ed Watters
My money's on the latter. Loser shut's their lights off for an entire year.
Also, let's keep writing about who's to blame for Hillary losing the past election. She didn't really lose though, she won the popular vote. Round and round we go.
But let's build that wall!
12
Man, the most invasive species to inhabit the planet, seems well along the way to extinction. Question is the self-inflicted means. Only question is, "Which of the four horsemen of the apocalypse does ocean warming represent?
10
The swamp monster!
Thank you this report. Your efforts to share these facts, insights, and implications about our environment are a key part of how we will come to terms with what we must do to keep earth inhabitable. There are no acceptable alternatives.
13
Glad I never had kids, I'd be terrified. If this turns very bad--and it seems that it will--the super wealthy, who think they don't need us little people, will find out quickly how deeply they have relied on us.
87
I propose an alternate version of Pascal's Wager. Those who still persist in denying global warming should commit to wagering their lives and property on that principle. But, ooh, they already have - and unaccountably choose eternal damnation for not only themselves and their descendants but for all humanity.
We are all Thelma and Louise at this point, speeding towards the cliff edge, and although every instinct for survival tells us to take our foot off the gas pedal (literally and figuratively), we evidently can't avoid the abyss hurtling towards us.
35
But yes, please tell me more about how illegal border crossings are the biggest threat to American interests.
With Trump and the GOP (read: the 1%) in control of our country, we're a 65 year old, three pack a day smoker insisting everything is going to be just fine.
It's not. We're likely already doomed, but if we want to have any hope of saving this place, Earth, for human habitation, global warming must immediately become THE SINGLE most important issue for American politics, and politics around the world. Only with a herculean effort will we preserve our way of life, and that effort must start TODAY.
Give up your gas-power car, give up your meat consumption, only vote for people who put environmental issues at the top of their agenda.
408
@Todd
There is no question in my mind that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is the single biggest challenge facing humanity.
The gradient in wealth and opportunity between rich and poor people within and among societies and nations is a determent in the political and economic equations of resource allocations, costs and benefits in humanity's response to climate change.
Migration has an effect on carbon mobilization.
For example, assume that the US population had stabilized in the low 200 millions in the early 1970's when the US birthrate reached replacement levels and the Zero Population Growth movement was active.
A simple computation of comparative carbon footprints between the US (about 20 metric tons CO2 per capita per year) and the world (about 4.4 metric tons CO2 per capita per year) over the ensuing years would yield a decrease in net carbon input to the atmosphere on the order of 5 -10 ppm, or about 10 to 20% of the difference above 350 ppm from current levels.
This is not inconsequential.
14
@Todd: Are you preferring alternative wheeled conveyance instead of gas-powered cars? Then what?
Electric cars? But they are charged by coal-burning power plants. Think about that. No free lunch there.
More widespread rapid transit would help. But that is difficult to implement.
Bicycles? I would like that if I were not risking my life from onrushing cars with which I have to share roadways.
Walking? I wish. But affordable housing in urban areas is so difficult, and so one must live outside of cities, commonly, where the commute on feet is impractical.
8
I am 72 and I drive a Tesla electric car and I became a vegan five years ago. I am doing my part. I also use reusable shopping bags, reusable straws, limit my electric and water usage.
53
The Earth is a marvelous, multifaceted living thing—and it's had enough of us. Our species doesn't stand a chance.
178
@Patrick Vecchio. We have it coming!
7
Thank you! I laughed out loud in agreement :)
4
I have one nit to pick. XBT's (expendable bathythermographs) are not lowered into the ocean. They free fall and a thin copper wire spools out on the back. When they reach their final depth, they break off the wire and fall to the bottom. Hence expendable. Depth is estimated by the fall time.
Argo floats are much better because they give salinity as well as temperature, and actually measure pressure (depth). Current floats only reach 2000 m, but newer floats are being tested that can reliably measure the small abyssal temperature changes.
30
Scientists need more funding to address the climate crisis but the GOP, like many right wing governments, is cutting science funding.
28
One of the studies I have seen speculates that as the Atlantic Ocean warms, the Gulf Stream will shutdown. This would have bad consequences for the British Isles and Northern Europe. Does this study address that issue?
13
@Bruce1253
This study only reports ocean heat content data. It does not provide results of ocean circulation models, and thus does not forecast changes in the Gulf Stream.
10
@Bruce1253
If the Gulf Stream collapses, imagine England having the same climate as Hudson's Bay Canada.
1
This does not look good. We are all focused on the atmosphere when it comes to climate change, but in fact the Earth's climate largely consists of an intricately linked atmosphere-ocean system, with considerable energy and gas exchange between the two. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the oceans absorb some atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the warmer the oceans get, the less carbon dioxide they can absorb.
108
The more we learn, the more ominous it becomes for so many species of plant and animal life. We have to own it. We have to change course and that starts at the top to spur apathy to action!
74
I truly fear for the future safety of the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the owners, board members and executives of the oil, natural gas, coal and pipeline companies and their sponsored political “leaders.”
As living conditions on our planet become unbearable due to the severe, relentless impacts of Climate Change, generations of devastated citizens around the world will ask: “Who is most directly responsible for this existential catastrophe?”
When these citizens look around, they will find many of the culpable carbon barons and carbon-sponsored politicians have already passed on to whatever afterlife awaits them. But the direct descendants of the carbon barons and the carbon-sponsored politicians will still be here. And there will be no escape – not even behind their gated communities – from the wrath of billions of incensed citizens on every continent.
For the carbon barons, it all comes down to one essential choice to be made right now: harvest their carbon assets and sacrifice their descendants – or – strand their carbon assets and save their descendants?
For the carbon-sponsored politicians, it also comes down to one essential choice to be made right now: continue to dither on Climate Change legislation and sacrifice their descendants – or – pass sweeping and meaningful Climate Change mitigation legislation and save their descendants?
The time on the clock is quickly running out...
31
@Phillip Stephen Pino
I feel the same way, but not as optimistic. There is only one choice the carbon barons and the carbon-sponsored politicians will consider and that is whatever option makes them more money right now.
There is zero chance they will adopt any other course.
67
@Migrant
FYI: The intended target audience of my original comment is the wives, daughters and granddaughters of the carbon barons and the carbon-sponsored politicians.
2
@Phillip Stephen Pino Escape is up. Its not inconsequential that many of the wealthiest humans are actively, feverishly, working out ways to leave the planet.
Addressing climate change has to be our top priority. It is a true crisis.
As a first step, let's repeal the $2 trillion tax cut we just gave to the rich and use the money to cut carbon emissions and start pulling carbon out of the atmosphere, by restoring forests and healing our soils.
333
@Josey. This is a very good comment that should be taken up as a beginning of the nation waking up to reality that affects every citizen of this Planet , no escaping to toxic political tribalism by brainwashed masses of TV denizens.
6
@Josey
Let's repeal the $2 trillion tax cut AND tax the rich at MUCH higher rates. Remember we have a lot of debt to pay down.
25
@may21ok
Eliminate carried interest and the tax loopholes for the carbon industry sector and repeal all pro-natalist tax provisions. Eliminate the federal flood insurance, especially for rebuilds on the coastal areas that are going under wit sea rise. Time for a huge gas tax increase.
4
God help us all.
33
@Karen
Time to get real - God will be of no help at all.
Human beings need to fix the climate change problem by what we do, what we buy, what we eat and how we vote.
31
@Karen
God's been a no-show forever.
It's up to humans to develop and use alternative energy, not the Easter Bunny.
32
@Karen yes, I second that prayer; and it's significant that the line includes both "God" and "us" working together. God and creation are not separate. Right now we need all the Divine Ideas we can get, to solve the climate problem. After all, unbridled science and technology [human thought] along with greed and ignorance got us into the mess we are in now. I pray for higher consciousness for scientists and politicians, that they can receive Divine Ideas for healing this problem, and have the courage to express them and implement them. A famous affirmation is, "The Divine Solution is the Sublime Solution. We accept the Divine Solution now."
1
I’m OK at 72 I used to think my grandchildren were screwed now I think my children are screwed.
344
@Alan I am 56... I keep wondering if I want to be here at 76...
26
@realityhurts Maybe not. I am thinking seriously whether to recommend to my children not to have children or not.
13
I’m mid 40’s and I’m worried Mad Max is my future.
13