ADVERTISEMENT

Guess What? The Globe Is Warming Faster than Predicted

Nov 28, 2010
84,065
37,843
113
Maryland
As I've been pointing out for a few years now, just about any time a new report on climate change comes out, things are worse than previously thought.

The score, if anyone is counting looks like this:

Alarmists: 86
Conservative scientists and MSM: 12
Deniers: 0

[yeah, I made that up; it's probably even worse]

Here's the latest....

Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming

The findings mean the world might have less time to curb carbon emissions.

The world’s oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.

Over the past quarter-century, the Earth’s oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by the Earth’s atmosphere — more than 8 times the world’s energy consumption, year after year.

In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called “Argo floats” were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records — and an overall lack of them — contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up.

The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth’s climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.

“We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted,” said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. “But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already.”

Wednesday’s study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

The world already has warmed 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century. Scientists backed by the United Nations reported this month that with warming projected to steadily increase, the world faces a daunting challenge in trying to limit that warming to only another half-degree Celsius. The group found that it would take “unprecedented” action by leaders across the globe over the coming decade to even have a shot at that goal.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has continued to roll back regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions from vehicles, coal plants and other sources, and has said it intends to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. In one instance, the administration relied on an assumption that the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, by the end of the century in arguing that a proposal to ease vehicle fuel-efficiency standards would have only minor climate impacts.

The new research underscores the potential consequences of global inaction. Rapidly warming oceans mean that seas will rise faster and that more heat will be delivered to critical locations that already are facing the effects of a warming climate, such as coral reefs in the tropics and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

“In case the larger estimate of ocean heat uptake turns out to be true, adaptation to — and mitigation of — our changing climate would become more urgent,” said Pieter Tans, leader of the Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group at NOAA, who was not involved in the study.

The oceans absorb more than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped within the world’s atmosphere.

more here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...oceans-suggesting-faster-rate-global-warming/
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
As I've been pointing out for a few years now, just about any time a new report on climate change comes out, things are worse than previously thought.

The score, if anyone is counting looks like this:

Alarmists: 86
Conservative scientists and MSM: 12
Deniers: 0

[yeah, I made that up; it's probably even worse]

Here's the latest....

Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming

The findings mean the world might have less time to curb carbon emissions.

The world’s oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.

Over the past quarter-century, the Earth’s oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by the Earth’s atmosphere — more than 8 times the world’s energy consumption, year after year.

In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called “Argo floats” were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records — and an overall lack of them — contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up.

The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth’s climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.

“We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted,” said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. “But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already.”

Wednesday’s study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

The world already has warmed 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century. Scientists backed by the United Nations reported this month that with warming projected to steadily increase, the world faces a daunting challenge in trying to limit that warming to only another half-degree Celsius. The group found that it would take “unprecedented” action by leaders across the globe over the coming decade to even have a shot at that goal.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has continued to roll back regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions from vehicles, coal plants and other sources, and has said it intends to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. In one instance, the administration relied on an assumption that the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, by the end of the century in arguing that a proposal to ease vehicle fuel-efficiency standards would have only minor climate impacts.

The new research underscores the potential consequences of global inaction. Rapidly warming oceans mean that seas will rise faster and that more heat will be delivered to critical locations that already are facing the effects of a warming climate, such as coral reefs in the tropics and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

“In case the larger estimate of ocean heat uptake turns out to be true, adaptation to — and mitigation of — our changing climate would become more urgent,” said Pieter Tans, leader of the Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group at NOAA, who was not involved in the study.

The oceans absorb more than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped within the world’s atmosphere.

more here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...oceans-suggesting-faster-rate-global-warming/

Despicable that there are people who deny this based solely upon their greed and short sighted selfishness. History will not judge those people well, if there is anyone left alive to record it.
 
Despicable that there are people who deny this based solely upon their greed and short sighted selfishness. History will not judge those people well, if there is anyone left alive to record it.

Actually we are skeptical of man-made climate changers because their claims never come true.

Time Magazine posted a cover story in the late 70s warning us that an ice age was about to hit the planet. A few years later, we were told that we had 'avoided' the ice age, now we had to worry about 'global warming'.

IIRC, Al Gore in 2006 told us we had 10 years to save the planet from 'man-made climate change'. Obviously we are still here. Well....some of us more than others.

I would happily believe in the theory of man-made climate change.....if anything its proponents claimed had actually been verified. All they can give us is 'research' and claims that this planet will die at some point in the future, if we don't act in a certain way today.

The fear-mongering for profit is what's despicable.
 
Is the change real? Maybe. But we aren't just skeptical, we're openly derisive of the claim man is behind any change. The problem is that the same scientists telling us that man is behind climate change are also telling us that a 22 week old fetus exhibiting similar pain and fear responses during their (murder) abortions as fully formed adult humans experiencing massive trauma doesn't mean anything.
 
Is the change real? Maybe. But we aren't just skeptical, we're openly derisive of the claim man is behind any change. The problem is that the same scientists telling us that man is behind climate change are also telling us that a 22 week old fetus exhibiting similar pain and fear responses during their (murder) abortions as fully formed adult humans experiencing massive trauma doesn't mean anything.

WTF are you talking about? I can assure you that climate scientists are no where near any decisions on the debate on whether a fetus experiences pain or not. Jesus, do you think that someone with the label "scientist" just does all sciences everywhere? No wonder you people can't figure this whole climate science stuff out.
 
WTF are you talking about? I can assure you that climate scientists are no where near any decisions on the debate on whether a fetus experiences pain or not. Jesus, do you think that someone with the label "scientist" just does all sciences everywhere? No wonder you people can't figure this whole climate science stuff out.
Well if the debate is still out, then why are we murdering babies? And the idea that it's "different scientists" is somehow a winner? Not hardly.
 
Well if the debate is still out, then why are we murdering babies? And the idea that it's "different scientists" is somehow a winner? Not hardly.

Is this what you are going to debate? That the debate on climate change is somehow related to abortion? Are you really this stupid? Please tell me you came up with this on your own and you didn't get this from some radio show or Fox News.

Here's a hint, if you have to use two completely unrelated issues and somehow try to connect them with an argument that makes you, at best, look like an ignorant high school drop out, it's probably best just to accept that you are wrong. I mean, this is just pathetic desperation at this point.
 
I am worried about the future.

BTW, I am driving my family to the Minneapolis airport tonight in my giant ass SUV, we are flying down to Miami where we will embark on a 7 day cruise. I can’t wait to go diving around the coral reefs and blast around on jet skis.

When I get back I am really going to self reflect on what I could do to help the environment. Perhaps send in a few bucks to a lobbying group, you know, something that truly makes a difference.
 
Nobody reputable said that. Quit lying to make yourself sound like you have a point.

Research Al Gore's claim in 2006 that we had 10 years to save the world. He just moved the goalposts when 2016 came and went and everything was fine.

This is why no intelligent people buy this nonsense. It's not because we are denying science, it's because we are embracing it.
 
Is the change real? Maybe. But we aren't just skeptical, we're openly derisive of the claim man is behind any change. The problem is that the same scientists telling us that man is behind climate change are also telling us that a 22 week old fetus exhibiting similar pain and fear responses during their (murder) abortions as fully formed adult humans experiencing massive trauma doesn't mean anything.

When you take stuff out of the ground that formed millions of years ago as their earths crust was being created then burn it up and put it into the air to the tune of creating power for billions and billions of people you can rest assure that man is having an impact on climate.
 
Research Al Gore's claim in 2006 that we had 10 years to save the world. He just moved the goalposts when 2016 came and went and everything was fine.

This is why no intelligent people buy this nonsense. It's not because we are denying science, it's because we are embracing it.

I am pretty sure Al Gore didn't say the world was ending in 10 years, but nice try.
 
Research Al Gore's claim in 2006 that we had 10 years to save the world. He just moved the goalposts when 2016 came and went and everything was fine.

This is why no intelligent people buy this nonsense. It's not because we are denying science, it's because we are embracing it.

Do you know what the word "reputable" means?

And by the way, Gore was referring to our ability to prevent a greater than 2 degree increase in Global climate. While we will never know if it was possible to prevent that, we never even tried. So, now because we did very little to slow carbon emissions, we are now just hoping we can keep temperatures below a 3 degree gain. I don't think we will do that either. So, Al Gore wasn't wrong, you just failed to understand the message. Something you have been doing for years now.
 
Is the change real? Maybe. But we aren't just skeptical, we're openly derisive of the claim man is behind any change. The problem is that the same scientists telling us that man is behind climate change are also telling us that a 22 week old fetus exhibiting similar pain and fear responses during their (murder) abortions as fully formed adult humans experiencing massive trauma doesn't mean anything.
The "same" scientists? Really?
 
I am pretty sure Al Gore didn't say the world was ending in 10 years, but nice try.

"And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-else-did-al-gore-get-wrong-1501021804

He said that in 2006. At the debut of his MOVIE ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

Like I said, what's despicable is how some people are profiteering off fear-mongering.
 
Do you know what the word "reputable" means?

And by the way, Gore was referring to our ability to prevent a greater than 2 degree increase in Global climate. While we will never know if it was possible to prevent that, we never even tried. So, now because we did very little to slow carbon emissions, we are now just hoping we can keep temperatures below a 3 degree gain. I don't think we will do that either. So, Al Gore wasn't wrong, you just failed to understand the message. Something you have been doing for years now.

Gore claimed in 2006 that unless we did something about greenhouse gases in 10 years, that the world would reach a point of no return.

You guys are still sounding the climate change alarm, so I guess our efforts failed.

So how many years do we have left till the earth is no longer habitable? Consult your 'reputable sources' and get back to us.
 
giphy.gif
 
When you take stuff out of the ground that formed millions of years ago as their earths crust was being created then burn it up and put it into the air to the tune of creating power for billions and billions of people you can rest assure that man is having an impact on climate.

Y'all hold it down.....guy that thinks the earth's crust was formed MILLIONS of years ago has something to say about science.....
 
"And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-else-did-al-gore-get-wrong-1501021804

He said that in 2006. At the debut of his MOVIE ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

Like I said, what's despicable is how some people are profiteering off fear-mongering.

Um, pretty sure that meant irreversible damage, not the end of the world, but again, carry on.
 
Gore claimed in 2006 that unless we did something about greenhouse gases in 10 years, that the world would reach a point of no return.

You guys are still sounding the climate change alarm, so I guess our efforts failed.

So how many years do we have left till the earth is no longer habitable? Consult your 'reputable sources' and get back to us.

We are past the point of no return when the goal is to prevent a 2 degree or greater increase in global temperature. You need to keep reading the complete sentence instead of stopping halfway through.
 
Gore claimed in 2006 that unless we did something about greenhouse gases in 10 years, that the world would reach a point of no return.

You guys are still sounding the climate change alarm, so I guess our efforts failed.

So how many years do we have left till the earth is no longer habitable? Consult your 'reputable sources' and get back to us.
I think at least 20 more years of Gore flying around in his private jet, driving around in his fleet of suburbans and preaching and we will still not see the end of days.

Maybe all the Dems can move to Uranus and "fit right in" all while saving Earth! Win-Win!!
 
"And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-else-did-al-gore-get-wrong-1501021804

He said that in 2006. At the debut of his MOVIE ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

Like I said, what's despicable is how some people are profiteering off fear-mongering.
Where the hell do you think we are, dumbass? We literally can't prevent a 2 degree rise now because we've done next to nothing - the point of return isn't even in the rearview mirror anymore. We likely can't hold it under 3 degrees and post three degrees all bets are off. We could very well be on an unstoppable rise to 5 or 6 degrees due to feedbacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
We are past the point of no return when the goal is to prevent a 2 degree or greater increase in global temperature. You need to keep reading the complete sentence instead of stopping halfway through.

Climate change was around long before Democrats decided to politicize it.

The climate changes. It goes up, it goes down.

When it becomes politicized, the dems claim an increase means MAN is killing the planet. And we must change our behavior, and regulations are passed to ensure we do. Government grows, hucksters like Gore get rich.

When the climate goes back down, Dems claim it was because our efforts to lower the temp are working, and we have to double down.

Again, climate change was around long before the dems decided to make money of it.
 
Where the hell do you think we are, dumbass? We literally can't prevent a 2 degree rise now because we've done next to nothing - the point of return isn't even in the rearview mirror anymore. We likely can't hold it under 3 degrees and post three degrees all bets are off. We could very well be on an unstoppable rise to 5 or 6 degrees due to feedbacks.

So how many more years does the planet have? Give us the number.

You can't. Because you are FOS. All you can do is point to research that is even more fake than you are.
 
Is the change real? Maybe. But we aren't just skeptical, we're openly derisive of the claim man is behind any change. The problem is that the same scientists telling us that man is behind climate change are also telling us that a 22 week old fetus exhibiting similar pain and fear responses during their (murder) abortions as fully formed adult humans experiencing massive trauma doesn't mean anything.


Climate scientists are postulating and lecturing on fetal cognition? You're an idiot.
 
Actually we are skeptical of man-made climate changers because their claims never come true.

Time Magazine posted a cover story in the late 70s warning us that an ice age was about to hit the planet. A few years later, we were told that we had 'avoided' the ice age, now we had to worry about 'global warming'.

IIRC, Al Gore in 2006 told us we had 10 years to save the planet from 'man-made climate change'. Obviously we are still here. Well....some of us more than others.

I would happily believe in the theory of man-made climate change.....if anything its proponents claimed had actually been verified. All they can give us is 'research' and claims that this planet will die at some point in the future, if we don't act in a certain way today.

The fear-mongering for profit is what's despicable.

You believe everything Trump tells you amirite? That TIME cover never existed genius, or are you knowingly posting lies as usual?

http://time.com/4778937/fake-time-cover-ice-age/
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Your inability to grasp that there are many common figures of speech that are not meant in a literal sense is pretty pathetic. I thought you guys were supposed to be educated?

You wrote "the same scientists" not me, you wily, super-genius.

Science and scientists are clearly your enemy. Why did you derail the thread with your pathetic anti-choice agenda? You clearly don't care about the living or the yet to live if you're anti-science. Hardly "pro-life".

Abortion is a legal, medical procedure. It's not baby-murder you maroon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Amazing how many times this gets discussed without ever talking about the real problem. Uniowa at least came close.
 
Those that use Time magazine and/or the POS Al Gore as their basis for ANYTHING science related should just stay out of threads like this, all it does is highlight the fact that you don't have the intellectual capacity to even understand the basics of such a topic, much less it's complexities

Never mind the fact that it's not climate change that is the elephant in the room.............it's the basic high school chemistry of ocean acidification

He only said that all northern ice was going to be gone. By the way, it’s still there and it’s getting larger.

LMAO.......Exhibit A on someone that doesn't even understand the basics

Figure3.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT