20 ms·
Ocean Heat Record Broken
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- veave 3y ago* since the 80s
- Lolaccount 3y agoThanks for the context. However, the focus should be on how the ocean will cope with this today. If the consequences are significant, is there anything we can do to avoid or mitigate them? The same with the global warming (boiling?). I'm not saying you're doing this (it's not clear), but I'm quite tired of these kind of responses to these kind of planetary stats which focus on 'when records began'. Whatever you think of when this started or how it started or if humans caused it or not ... we still have to respond to it as best we can.
- Karellen 3y ago* since worldwide direct measurements began, in the '80s. But also, we have no indirect/proxy measurements from before then to suggest that the ocean was warmer before the '80s than it was when those measurements started, let alone now.
- xg15 3y agoCan you name another year in which the ocean temperature diagram looked like this? https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F0A3/production/_130630616_era_5_global_sea_temp_lines-nc.png.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F0A3/production/...
- defrost 3y agoSince the 1880s (at least ...) This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... * Sea surface temperature increased during the 20th century and continues to rise. From 1901 through 2020, temperature rose at an average rate of 0.14°F per decade (see Figure 1). * Sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable observations began in 1880 (see Figure 1). Data from: NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2021. Extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST.v5). https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/extended-reconstructed-sst https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/extended-reconstructed-ss...
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoI'm sure it's been a lot hotter - same with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere - but humanity didn't exist yet.
- flir 3y agoThere was an interesting piece of research done on Canadian restaurant menus. You can see warming happening as the species on the plate change. (I realise I'm not going to convince this guy, and I realise it's a proxy measurement. I just found it interesting that the signal was there at all: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10641-022-01244-6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10641-022-01244-6)
- 7373737373 3y agoI'd love to read this, but not for 40 bucks. Fuck you Springer (in fact i'm not willing to pay anything if this research was publicly funded)
- brettermeier 3y agoAnd it's not on Anna's Archive, unfortunately. It seems to be too new. And btw., you should never (NEVER!) give money to Springer. They are truly evil.
- avgcorrection 3y agoToday I went to work, worked in the garden, made dinner, cleaned the dishes and waited for the world to end.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoI mean that's pretty much all an individual can do. Drop in the warm ocean. Personally I'm convinced we've passed the point of no return a long time ago, and even if human emissions suddenly dropped to zero the balance would be disturbed for decades or thousands of years to come.
- bwestergard 3y agoA less bad future for human beings is still possible, if we change our institutions.
- taberiand 3y agoBut that would mean a more bad present, and we can't be having that can we?
- mistermann 3y agoThat may depend on the efficiency level humanity is currently running at, my guess is we are running somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%. Don't be scared, homies!
- bwestergard 3y agoWould it? More than half the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was emitted in the last thirty years, and a small fraction of the global population accounts for most of the consumption those emissions made possible. Many people whose consumption is very great complain of time stress, diseases of affluence, a sense of purposelessness, etc. Going back to the per capita material and energy throughputs of the 1960s by raising consumption for many and decreasing it for a few could easily make both groups significantly better off.
- shrubble 3y ago[flagged]
- AndrewSChapman 3y agoReally? You're looking at the graph, showing a clear and frankly ominous anomaly, especially in the context of the clear wording around "the oceans should be warmest in March, not August", and this is your response? Well done.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoRight? You'd hope that the kind of audience that this site has would be able to read and understand graphs and statistics. But seems like nope. Imagine looking at e.g. some service RPC logs and seeing P95 latencies off the charts during certain peak hours of the day but then just taking the average of the whole day and being like "only 10ms higher than the day before so it's fine" I mean, I failed high school math but have since had to learn enough stats in my career to understand the consequences of ignoring variance...
- shrubble 3y agoAnomaly (your word) != trend . It only becomes a trend when it happens more than once, by definition.
- amelius 3y agoI guess you're the type of person who's impressed only when it is too late.
- flir 3y agoNow convert that to joules. Assume we're only looking at, say, the top metre of ocean.
- 7373737373 3y ago(the comment above mentioned the current temperature being only 0.01°C higher than the previous record in March) > Since total ocean heat capacity is about 1000x greater than total atmosphere, it means that a barely measurable temperature increase in the ocean (1/1000th of a degree C) could drive a massive spike in global air temperature (1 degree C). https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/ https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-... As seen/felt now in Chile, perhaps: > Mid-winter temperatures above 35 degrees Celsius in South America leave climatologists in disbelief > Data from Chile's national meteorological agency, Dirección Meteorológica de Chile, shows several weather stations in the country reached temperatures above 35C on August 1. > This is between 10C and 20C above what is normal for this time of year in parts of Chile and Argentina, according to data from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). > What's causing South America's heat? Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said the South American heat extremes were also likely to bear the fingerprints of climate change. > "There are likely multiple causes to these temperatures — record warm sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic, the developing El Niño in the Pacific, a heat dome that was recently over the region combined with foehn winds, and anthropogenic climate change," she said. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/south-america-extreme-heat-mid-winter-climate-change-scientists/102678662 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/south-america-extreme...
- picadores 3y agoIts gonna become a devourer smoothie, with the heat resistant gravedigger bacteria eating all the remains and the building a floating dead crust..
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- EverydayBalloon 3y ago[dead]
- jansan 3y ago[flagged]
- flagged24 3y agoThe warmer the water, the less oxygen it contains. Probably why the cold polar waters are teaming with life.
- olalonde 3y agoTropical waters have greater bio-diversity and teeming with life as well. Same phenomenon on land.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago"up to a certain limit".... which is being passed.....???
- jansan 3y agoCan you point out regions of the oceans where water so hot that sea life can barely exist?
- inetknght 3y agoIt's not the hot water per se. It's the lack of oxygen. There are many dead zones. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html
- mg 3y agoThis chart looks like all 3 months since May 2023 have been extreme outliers: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F0A3/production/_130630616_era_5_global_sea_temp_lines-nc.png.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F0A3/production/... These 3 months seem so out of line with all others that I am not sure I am reading the chart correctly.
- albertgoeswoof 3y agoThis chart is terrifying! It reminds me of the XKCD temperature chart: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- jansan 3y agoWhy? What will be the consequences besides the two mentioned in the aricle (sharks may become more aggressive, and some fish and wales may move in search of cooler waters)?
- inetknght 3y agowarmer waters = less oxygen less oxygen = less life less life = less food less food = less human
- Longhanks 3y agoI’d argue that "less human" is a net positive for Earth.
- anonymoushn 3y agoYou first :)
- blooalien 3y agoHow about the people who actually caused (and are still actively causing, and fighting to continue causing) the problem go first, yeah?
- footlose_3815 3y agoWhy is everybody in this thread denying the news?
- jansan 3y agoYou probably mean "denying the facts", because being sceptical about the news should be normal for independent thinkers.
- jacquesm 3y ago'independent thinkers' for me has become synonymous with anti-science, climate denial and antivaxx groups.
- mcluck 3y agoIt's really bizarre. From my perspective, comments on HN are usually at least slightly better reasoned than other social sites. But this thread is absolutely crawling with comments flat out denying the science
- footlose_3815 3y agoI think the banned Redditors from the alt-right subs have started to work their way in here. It kinda used to be like old reddit in here. Empirical analysis, people who read the article first. These people jump into these hot-topic threads just to piss all over it with every possible dumb thing to say. Climate denial, "Just let it get worse" kinds of comments. Knee-jerk making up stuff, and coping to make it OK. I wouldn't be surprised if it's astroturfed bots. It's not like HN does much to filter out fake and real accounts.
- ragazzina 3y agoI don't find it bizarre at all. It was the same during COVID, and it's the same every time rent or gun control are discussed. HN leans pretty conservative.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
- boredemployee 3y agoTo be frankly honest, the society humans have built over the years is pretty funny and hard to believe. I've been on this planet for just over 30 years, and since I was a little boy I was told (manipulated?) that having things, better cars, better equipment, luxury, wealth, was the right thing to do. This system produced and still produces many unhappy people, many poor and miserable people. On the other hand, it also left a lot of rich people in the middle of the road. but today, the press, big companies and the rich (multi-billionaires) accuse that, in fact, we are all to blame for our unbridled consumption (which they helped to build, by the way). Even though I'm not stupid and I'm a big believer in science and the changes are real (after all, we're seeing this in our everyday lives) it's hard not to believe that there are SOME manipulation going on again.
- futureshock 3y agoI think you are conflating different authorities and special interests into one monolith. Corporations want you to consume. Pro-business libertarians want you to consume. Environmentalists want you to draw down consumption. Authoritarians of every stripe want to tell you how to live your life and control your behavior to match their worldview. The science says that our economic system is at total odds with our biosphere and that our exponential consumption growth will come to an end. At that point, we will be forced into a new economic system. It’s an inevitability. People’s opinions and ideology can only defy reality for so long.
- avgcorrection 3y agoCorporations want you to “consume“ because that's in their self-interest. Meanwhile nation states also want you to do that, and need you to do that because the economic system itself relies on it. In other words you have all the actual authorities on the side of consumption and the non-authorities like environmentalists on the side of non- or anti-consumption.
- kavalg 3y agoAnd it looks like the "solution" from their point of view is that you consume less, but pay the same amount of money or even more, so that the economy keeps "growing".
- ChatGTP 3y agoIs there going to be any leadership here from say, the USA? The UN? The EU? China? Anyone? Like, we're obviously in the middle of some type of rapidly escalating climate emergency / crisis and honestly, there is just silence from any of the agencies and or institutions who may have any chance to avert a potential catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. The news we're starting to receive on a daily basis is the kind of thing you'd hope to see The POTUS making an address to the world over and actually discussing next steps. That graph looks bad enough it's time to declare the war on the climate crisis and end fossil fuel usage immediately. If this means re-organizing society to build nuclear plants at scale in record time, so be it. Let's be honest, we let free markets try sort it out, and they have been fairly successful through renewables but not successful enough, we need to try something more radical now. Not panic, but we need to move.
- asah 3y agoTrue emergency will only be declared after a sufficiently catastrophic event, such as the 20M deaths imagined in _Ministry for the Future_.
- phkahler 3y ago>> is there going to be any leadership here from say, the USA? The UN? The EU? China? Anyone? China has been been aiming to reduce human impact on the planet for decades by reducing the number of humans. They are finally getting somewhere with it.
- NickC25 3y agoMaybe they are paying lip service to such, but in practice, no, they haven't, and they aren't. At least internally. Why? Because their economy is slowing down and they have a massive population imbalance. They ended the one-child policy and want families to have 2 or 3 kids in hopes that they can help revive their economy. They can't continue to grow at the pace they have been since the turn of the century, but if The Party wants to maintain its power (which it does at all costs), it needs to continue to hit growth targets. Can't do that with a shrinking population. Their Belt-And-Road doesn't really help either because it brings new money to developing countries which in turn brings new lifestyle demands from countries with now increased standards of living due to an influx of capital from increased trade with China.
- phkahler 3y agoSurface temperatures. Could this be because of the Canadian wild fires?
- orwin 3y agoNo, it's from earlier. That's problematic for zooplankton. Also, a big issue is the west Antarctica glacier. If sea ice sheets stay this swallow until next summer, that might accelerate it's demise. Artica is done and we can't do anything about it, but most of the ice is sea ice and the Groenland glacier aren't that big (compared to Antarctica), and the sea level rises caused by Artica melting won't be really high (1 to 3 meter max). If the west Antarctica glacier melt (or slide), it will be 4 to 5 times that.
- bamboozled 3y agoWhat is artica, I think you mean "The Arctic"?
- s5300 3y ago[dead]
- spants 3y ago[flagged]
- PurpleRamen 3y agoSeems like earth needs a better heat pipe.
- xbmcuser 3y agoIf I recall correctly higher temperature in the ocean means more powerful hurricanes. My guess is cities and coastal areas that have never seen hurricane level storms might start getting hit. This is just the start and it looks like the speed of warming is faster than most people expected. I blame that directly on US right wing politicians they and their bullshit has resulted in a large number of people not believing in global warming and because of how loud they are the world.
- voidfunc 3y ago[flagged]
- dashundchen 3y agoThat's ignoring all the issues American environmentalists identified and were proven right about since the dawn of the movement. DDT thinning bird eggs and causing near extinction of many species? Banning DDT resulted in recovery. Companies dumping sewage, PCBs and industrial waste into our water, killing entire ecosystems? While not perfect, the Great Lakes and many rivers are worlds apart from where they were 50 years ago thanks to the EPA and Clean Water Act. Same situation for the Clean Air Act. Same for the Endangered Species Act. Same situation for banning lead from paint and automotive gasoline. Same situation for the ozone layer and the Montreal Protocol. These movements were not unopposed. In most of those fights, business and conservative (in the traditional sense of the word) groups fought against the regulation needed to address the problem. Hell, the current GOP platform for 2024 is to completely gut the EPA's authority within the first year. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/far-right-climate-plans-00107498 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/far-right-climate-p... Climate change is much more complex than any of the mentioned issues and will take much more global cooperation. Crazy to somehow blame this on environmentalists just because the effects are larger scale and slower-changing.
- gottorf 3y agoEverything in life is a tradeoff. There are no "solutions" to problems, because every solution must be accomplished using scarce resources that have alternative uses, and may carry unintended consequences. > Banning DDT resulted in recovery. It also caused more people to die of malaria[0,1]. > Same for the Endangered Species Act And adds to worsening homelessness in the Bay Area[2], so much so that a recent infrastructure bill signed by the governor weakens many environmental protections[3]. Banning things is easy. We can just ban every modern convenience and go back to pre-Industrial Revolution living standards and drop our carbon emissions by 99%. But the hidden side of every success story that comes from a ban of whatever material or practice you can think of is the human toll at the other end. [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173321/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173321/ [1]: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_261.pdf https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents... [2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/woodside-blocks-new-housing-development-cites-endangered-cougars/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/woodside-blocks-ne... [3]: https://www.kpbs.org/news/environment/2023/06/29/building-california-how-will-the-infrastructure-deal-affect-development-wildlife https://www.kpbs.org/news/environment/2023/06/29/building-ca...
- nickdothutton 3y agoI'm all for decarbonisation. For the BBC, which claims to be a world class journalistic organisation, to omit the fact that the data they cite only begins sometime in the 1980s is very poor.
- defrost 3y agoIt's clearly marked on the graph. There is good data going back to 1880 on ocean tempreture that shows a consistent climbing trend.
- PheonixPharts 3y ago> only begins sometime in the 1980s is very poor The observation that "we only have N years of data so we don't know anything!" creeps up frequently in climate denial arguments. But I am sincerely curious, do you earnestly believe that, ignoring the other methods of estimating these values we have, that if we had satellite measurements going back 100s of years they would reveal that this level of heating is in fact quite common? Of course we do have data that suggests, at least as far back as 1880 [0] that we are in an era of record sea surface temperatures [0]. But even if we didn't, we have countless other observations that strongly suggest the planet is heating up in multiple ways. We also have a fairly good hypothesis as well that nicely explains all of these observations (CO2 released by human industrialization is capturing more solar heat, causing the planet to warm). Yes, when we try to get too granular with our predictions the models aren't as great, but overall we have a nice hypothesis that seems to explain a wide range of observed phenomena over a large range of time scales for different data sets. When you take into account all of this information, while it is important to always remain open to skepticism, it seems remarkably unlikely that what we're observing is in fact common in recent human history and therefore not particularly worth of note. 0. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
- 7373737373 3y agoI wonder: CO2 emissions are often discussed, but what is the effect of the heat generated from our billions of machines? > In 2007 the world consumed roughly 500 quadrillion BTUs of energy and is expected to increase at 1.4% per year. [1] About 90% of this energy was generated through fossil fuel combustion with a typical efficiency of 30-40%. The remaining 60-70% of the energy was lost to the environment via automotive exhaust, industrial processes, and more. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/weisse1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/weisse1/
- christophilus 3y agoI ran across meer.org yesterday. It seems timely. I wonder how realistic the project is? [0] https://www.meer.org/ https://www.meer.org/
- bamboozled 3y agoI love ideas like this, actually seems easy to implement too. I don't know how well the science checks out but I suspect things like this would be better than spray aerosols into the air.
- jdjdjdhhd 3y agoIt's only about 1/4 of a degree
- 7373737373 3y ago> Since total ocean heat capacity is about 1000x greater than total atmosphere, it means that a barely measurable temperature increase in the ocean (1/1000th of a degree C) could drive a massive spike in global air temperature (1 degree C). https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/ https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-... As seen/felt now in Chile, perhaps: > Mid-winter temperatures above 35 degrees Celsius in South America leave climatologists in disbelief > Data from Chile's national meteorological agency, Dirección Meteorológica de Chile, shows several weather stations in the country reached temperatures above 35C on August 1. > This is between 10C and 20C above what is normal for this time of year in parts of Chile and Argentina, according to data from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). > What's causing South America's heat? Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said the South American heat extremes were also likely to bear the fingerprints of climate change. > "There are likely multiple causes to these temperatures — record warm sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic, the developing El Niño in the Pacific, a heat dome that was recently over the region combined with foehn winds, and anthropogenic climate change," she said. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/south-america-extreme-heat-mid-winter-climate-change-scientists/102678662 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/south-america-extreme...
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- ankit219 3y agoIt feels weird that a reputed publication like BBC chose to focus on climate change when focusing on ocean temperatures but completely ignored the effect of S02 regulation[1] of 2020. This[2] is from three months ago when the ocean temperatures were warmer than normal. From what I gather, that trend has continued and accelerated. [1]: SO2 content in fuels was mandated to be no more than 0.5% instead of existing 3.5% in 2020(#IMO2020) citing pollution. SO2 absorbs heat in the atmosphere. This combined with end of a rare triple dip La Nina[3] (responsible for colder temps in last three years) were responsible for a sudden spike in April. [2]: https://phys.org/news/2023-04-earth-hot-sudden-ocean-spike.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-earth-hot-sudden-ocean-spike.h... [3]: https://phys.org/news/2023-04-hot-ocean-temperatures-hottest.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-hot-ocean-temperatures-hottest...
- Workaccount2 3y agoI suspect it is imminent (5-10 years) that we will start manually spraying the atmosphere with some sort of reflective aerosol. For all the ho-ha about green energy and an electrified society, nothing will stop the hemorrhaging faster than spraying the atmosphere. It's not even close.
- cdelsolar 3y agohow will that help with the CO2 concentration in our oceans and atmosphere?
- Workaccount2 3y agoIt won't. It also doesn't provide any form of permanent fix. It's purely a stop gap that can be used to hold down global temperatures while we figure out how to get CO2 out of the air.
- foobiekr 3y agoit won't. it's just a band aid.
- _xnmw 3y ago[flagged]
- coldtea 3y agoThis will end well...
- atribecalledqst 3y agoAre any HNers involved in environmental orgs? There are a bunch active in my area, but the most organized seems to be Citizens Climate Lobby. (my metric for 'most organized' is that 'they actually reached out to me personally, as in a human emailed me when I registered') CCL's main platform is advocating for a carbon tax and their main activity is arranging meetings with Congresspeople (both Ds and Rs) to drum up support. It seems like a good organization, if a bit on the moderate side. I haven't actually joined up with CCL or anybody else yet, so please don't view this as a stealth attempt at advertising haha. Just looking at what's out there and trying to overcome anxiety. I can find a million reasons to do nothing...
- numbers_guy 3y agoI find pretty much all politically active environmentalists to be economically and sociologically illiterate. Proposals range from, "let's turn off the economy", to "let's reduce the standard of living" or "let's just increase the cost of living 10x as much". That is not to say that the economists are any better, because they are often sociologically and environmentally illiterate. It seems that to be politically active you have to turn off part of your brain and accept whatever ideological bullshit your chosen tribe pushes fervently as their doctrine. I do not think you can actually achieve much politically at this point in time, without angering and alienating a lot of the electorate. The environmentalists say, "fuck them, we will force them with laws" and the economists will say, "fuck the poor, we will create a pay to play system so that the rich can continue with their lifestyle and the poor will be priced out of it". I think democracy only works because it averages over all these very different groups to get a solution that satisfies nobody but is somehow pointing in the right direction.
- palata 3y ago> without angering and alienating a lot of the electorate This just means that this part of the electorate hasn't yet grasped how bad climate change is. The question is not "how do we find more moderate solutions", but really "how do we get those people to see that we are going towards wars, poverty and famine globally". All that in a context where fossil energies are going down and we don't have solutions to replace them. So the world will become much more complicated because of climate change, and on top of that a lot more complicated because we will have less and less energy to face it. Whoever is not alarmist, at this point, hasn't really grasped how bad the situation is (or they believe that their country will be able to survive alone, with big walls and a big army, I don't know).
- herdcall 3y agoI don't get this figure: how can the average temperature be higher than that of all the years? If this is a model prediction, it's extremely misleading. And if each gray line represents a year, we can't tell if there is a steady increase year/year, all we see are clusters for different years. Also, it seems having wide fluctuations is not uncommon: I see a +2.6 degree increase in 2015. Climate changes can be serious, but it's hard to get straight facts anymore, it seems.
- jsnell 3y agoThe X axis is the day of the year. The y axis is the average temperature across the entire surface area of the the sea (between -60 to 60 degrees) on that day. Each line is a different year. It sounds like you're interpreting "average" as being an aggregate over time, but it is actually an aggregate over space at a given point in time. The graph you're getting the 2015 number from is not comparable. It is only about the temperatures in the limited area in the Pacific where the El Nino effect happens.
- 7373737373 3y agoIf you mean the lower figure, the temperature is compared to the average, it shows the difference to the average over time
- kredd 3y agoAverage of daily surface temperature across oceans, so every point in the plot is basically a day and its respective temperature. The problem is on average the graph lines are moving up on Y axis, potentially causing problems in a longer run.
- nostrademons 3y agoThe line shown is a spatial average: its value is the average over all (measured) points of the ocean, at a given point in time. It's not a model prediction, these are actual recorded temperatures. The graphic is illustrating how the current year compares to the cluster of previous years. It would be more informative if it were interactive and you could hover over or label other years, but that requires Javascript abilities that this news outlet doesn't have. I think I've seen other presentations of this data and there is a clear later-is-hotter trend, but it's subject to the normal El Nino / La Nina oscillation plus random fluctuations. The bar graph is measuring a different quantity: it's ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific (vs. all over the world), and specifically illustrates the El Nino cycle. The reason this is important is because overall ocean temperatures tend to be cooler in La Nina years anyway. One point of this research is that the naturally cooler temperatures from La Nina may have masked ocean warming that would've happened over 2020-2023, and now that we're switching to El Nino conditions, the temperature increase will come back with a vengeance.
- prennert 3y ago> It reached 20.96C. That's far above the average for this time of year. Nothing to worry about. A new era has just started, and LK99 levitates still at 22C. Once there is nothing left to protect in the oceans, we can work on finding a way to magnetize them and get floating ships!
- ralusek 3y agoIt seems as though we currently have the technology to make a major dent in the release of carbon into the atmosphere. Due to the negative third party externality of something affecting the entire planet, this is a rare case where there should be unanimous agreement wrt allowing our governments some authority to take action. 1.) All coal, oil, and gas power plants are phased out with nuclear power taking their place. In rare exceptions where it makes sense, solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric may be considered. 2.) Continued massive subsidies for purchasing electric vehicles. Large funding for public transit, and in the US, a serious reworking of the way that bidding on contracts, etc, occurs, such that construction of this nature can actually be accomplished 3.) All forests cut for agriculture must be replaced with at least 1:1 carbon sink 4.) All large shipping vessels are changed to nuclear
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bartimus 3y agoOcean SURFACE temperature