[HN Gopher] World ocean temperatures in 2021 were the hottest ev...
___________________________________________________________________
World ocean temperatures in 2021 were the hottest ever recorded
Author : brimnes
Score : 83 points
Date : 2022-01-12 21:10 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
| matsemann wrote:
| Forecasts for +10C in Oslo Norway the next days, possibly melting
| all the snow and ruining skiing in the forests during lockdown,
| my best reason to go outside at the moment..
| fzzzy wrote:
| Wow, the forecast here in the upper peninsula of michigan is
| below 0c for the next 10 days, and oslo is way further north.
| horstmeyer wrote:
| Too bad you can't go skiing, but I'm a bit more worried about
| plant and wildlife that "thinks" it's spring and then will get
| killed when it gets cold again later.
| matsemann wrote:
| Of course. And I also know a single instance isn't proof of
| climate change. But I wanted to point out / rant about how
| the winters have changed over time here. It's sad.
|
| And summers hotter than ever. Have had to buy AC, as if we're
| in Southern Europe.
| dragonsky67 wrote:
| Just interested in what temperatures have risen to that you
| need an AC?
|
| I also understand that buildings in normally colder
| climates are optimised to keep warm so that if things get
| hotter in general they are not going to cope well so an AC
| may well be necessary at temperatures that in other regions
| would be considered relatively cool.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| It can get above 30C here[1][2], which is pretty hot for
| us. As you say, buildings are well insulated for the
| winter which means that the walls retains a lot of heat
| into the night once they've been baking for several days.
|
| Keep in mind the sun goes down at around 11pm, so it
| doesn't really get cold outside until well past midnight.
| In my home, that means it can be 25C inside for hours
| after bedtime unless I use AC and keep the interior cold
| during the day.
|
| One could get used to 25C I suppose, problem is it's just
| for a few weeks at a time, then it goes back down. So you
| never really get used to it.
|
| [1]: https://www.yr.no/en/statistics/table/1-72837/Norway
| /Oslo/Os...
|
| [2]: https://www.yr.no/en/statistics/table/1-72837/Norway
| /Oslo/Os...
| wsinks wrote:
| That would be my worry too! I wonder if the next step is to
| figure out if there's any sort of regularity of the newer
| climate and to find plants that might be able to support
| those time cycles..
| the-dude wrote:
| Since 1940. Or 1958. Or is it 1995?
|
| Why does the graph have 2 colors? Why is 1995 'zero'?
| jvanderbot wrote:
| It's relative to 1981-2010 baseline. Negative is lower,
| positive is higher. In 1995, presumably, it was also the
| average temperature for the 1981-2010 time.
|
| The two colors are negative and positive, a potentially
| unimportant dramatization.
|
| Clarifying based on what I understood: Data from 1940-today
| show that the period from 1985-today had 8x more heat added
| than the period from 1958-1985, and that each decade since 1958
| has increased in temperature.
| avereveard wrote:
| Because ever recorded is a code word for only recently - sea
| surface average is about around the medieval climate optimum
| and under the roman age warming period.
|
| Not to say climate is not warming up, but news reels always go
| for the most sensationalistic take they have available because
| that sell, while more nuanced takes tend to be buried under
| pressure from the ministry of truth to control the message, as
| they believe us to be simpletons.
| mkoubaa wrote:
| At this point "World ocean temperatures this year were not the
| hott st ever recorded would be front page news"
| viggity wrote:
| Chart has baseline at ~1995. They say we reached 200 zettajoules
| around 2019.
|
| 200 zettajoules => 2.0e23 J * 4.184 J/cal => 8.36e+23 calories
|
| They say this is the energy absorbed by top 2000 meters of the
| oceans. There are 84.8 million sq km of ocean.
|
| 2000m * 84.8e6 => 1.69e20 liters of water.
|
| 1000 calorie to warm 1L of water by 1 deg C.
|
| 1.69e20 L / 8.36e23 cal => warmed by 0.2 deg C since 1995.
| idealmedtech wrote:
| That's alarmingly fast.
| glial wrote:
| If my calculations are correct, that's the equivalent of 52
| billion Hiroshima bombs.
| roughly wrote:
| Link to the paper:
| https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-022-146...
| mrjangles wrote:
| Not only does science show the current temperatures are getting
| hotter than ever. We now know the past 50 years was colder than
| we ever thought. With new advanced scientific techniques, we now
| have a much better idea what the temperature was 50 years ago
| than they did 50 years ago.
|
| It should be kept in mind, these new temperatures measured now
| are not breaking records compared to the temperatures measure 50
| years ago, but rather to the _modified_ and _corrected_
| temperatures of 50 years ago.
|
| Here is a great little collection showing how the temperature
| records change over time.
|
| https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/alterations-to-climate-d...
| matsemann wrote:
| I don't understand this. How / why is near-historic data being
| changed? Got any more material on this?
| hagbard_c wrote:
| The data is being "corrected" to "take away errors", this is
| clearly visible as well as explained by Heller in his many
| videos on the subject. Another issue is that the measuring
| network has notably shrunk in size in the last decades with
| the measurements from locations which have been taken out
| replaced by interpolated data. Heller claims that
| "uncorrected" historical data shows that the average
| temperature in the 30's was higher than it is today and that
| this is the reason for the "corrections" - simply to make the
| data fit the narrative. Looking at actual historical data
| seems to corroborate his claim of the records being
| "corrected", US state and territory temperature extremes [1]
| also show a tendency to have the highs somewhere in the 30's
| (23 states) with 1936 as the hottest year in 13 states. These
| are "uncorrected" temperature records.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_te
| mpe...
| jvanderbot wrote:
| That article is not convincing. The X- and Y-axes change in
| those plots, producing a misleading animation. Also, all plots
| clearly show warming trends that are accelerating.
| KETpXDDzR wrote:
| I have the feeling that many people (especially politicians)
| think that global warming is a linear process. It's not. It might
| even be exponential since some sources for climate-warming are
| affected by warmer climate. For example, melting ice that
| reflects sunlight back to space
| [https://arcticwwf.org/places/last-ice-area/].
|
| I'm thinking about choosing a new place to live right now.
| Climate change is a big factor for that.
| anonporridge wrote:
| "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to
| understand the exponential function."
| threatofrain wrote:
| Where ought one move to optimize for climate change?
| rednerrus wrote:
| North Dakota.
| adamrezich wrote:
| upvoting to draw attention away from South Dakota
| [deleted]
| rlewkov wrote:
| Scranton
| anonporridge wrote:
| Nowhere.
|
| Don't commit to any locale and design a life that's highly
| mobile.
| anonporridge wrote:
| Don't forget about the fact that the amount of energy required
| to phase change 0degC ice into 0degC water is about the same
| amount of energy required to heat 0degC water to 79degC
| water...
|
| https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/...
| lmilcin wrote:
| It isn't even exponential, it might be much worse than that.
|
| Tipping points have ability to change our climate in a very,
| very short time.
|
| For example, Gulfstream breaking or redirecting can be a sudden
| event. Many people forget that Europe is very far north
| compared to its climate. If you chose a lattitude so that half
| Canadians live north of it and half south of it, that lattitude
| would intersect Croatia, Italy and Spain.
|
| A sudden break in Gulfstream would bring immediate step change
| to European climate, complete crop and extensive infrastructure
| failure.
| irrational wrote:
| Personally I would not buy property south of the 45th parallel
| anymore (in the northern hemisphere). Even north of that we
| have seen shockingly high temperatures. Anything south of that
| will become a hellscape within our lifetime.
| trentnix wrote:
| Bet.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Maybe the futurist should not hold real estate at all - keep
| wealth in stocks and rent and let the landlords place their
| bets on chaos theory.
| ed_balls wrote:
| it depends if it's east or west. Chicago is 42o, similar to
| Madrid, but I think Madrid will have bigger problems.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Latitude will have less impact than altitude from the
| projections I have seen. Bogota may be less impacted than
| Anchorage.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| I don't want to sound fatalistic but it's difficult to see how
| we can reset the 4 big feedback loops in any reasonable amount
| of time:
|
| Ice-albedo feedback -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice%E2%80%93albedo_feedback
|
| Permafrost thaw feedback -
| https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/global-carbon-budget-perm...
|
| Forestfire\Drought feedback -
| https://weatherology.com/trending/articles/Drought-Feedback-...
|
| Jetstream Disruption feedback - https://www.climate.gov/news-
| features/understanding-climate/...
|
| It'll be like stopping an avalanche with a shovel.
|
| Any control theory guys out there with suggestions?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Sulfur dioxide in jet fuel until carbon capture and
| decarbonization can catch up.
| smm11 wrote:
| Lots of funky fish found lurking off the LA coast these days.
| propogandist wrote:
| We should start by working to keep the ocean clean, then worry
| about the temperature of the polluted water.
|
| Why is there more interest in controlling the temperature vs the
| pollution itself?
|
| consumerism needs to change for temperature to change
| Flashtoo wrote:
| These are different problems that both need to be addressed as
| soon as possible, but for different reasons. Having said that,
| runaway global warming seems like the more pressing existential
| threat to me.
| rossipedia wrote:
| This is fine
| Datenstrom wrote:
| Don't look up
| sparky_ wrote:
| I see you're being downvoted; I suspect OP is sarcastically
| referring to the "dog in a burning kitchen" meme..
| rossipedia wrote:
| You're correct. I erroneously thought I didn't need the /s,
| but alas... I was mistaken.
| willio58 wrote:
| Is anyone on HN reconsidering having children because of climate
| change? Recently I've had a big shift myself on this topic,
| probably influenced by not many women my age (younger than 30)
| having any interest in bringing a child into a world where they
| could potentially suffer real physical danger due to climate
| change.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I think it is reasonable to not have kids if you think the
| probability of an acceptable quality of life for them is too
| low.
|
| I only agreed to have kids because I have a spouse who earns
| above average and I feel secure that we will be able procure
| resources and equip the kids well, but I think would have been
| just as happy if I had not had kids.
| adamrezich wrote:
| if you are posting on HN and you have children today, their
| baseline quality of life is better than 99.999% than that of
| human history.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| No doubt about that, and I make no judgment about other
| people's criteria or even lack thereof for having or not
| having children.
| adamrezich wrote:
| me neither, because there's no point in trying to
| convince someone to change their mind about whether or
| not to act upon their own primary biological instinct
| that they've been taught to suppress--it's a self-
| correcting problem, and one that most certainly doesn't
| concern me.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Well, the birds aren't going to fix climate change.
|
| I can't speak for the women you know, but the women I know in
| their 20s-30s tell me they aren't thinking about children at
| all probably thanks to the empowerment of women of the last 100
| years.
|
| Over my life, I've heard all kinds of excuses for all people to
| not consider children until they are in their late 30s or 40s,
| then it's a rush. I did the same.
|
| I'm not sure it's climate change.
| adamrezich wrote:
| yeah I've noticed that the antinatalists never seem to be
| saying, "man, I really really _want_ to have kids, it 's one
| of if not the most important driving forces in my life... but
| the threat of climate change looms ever-present, so it would
| be irresponsible to bring my heirs into this fallen Earth!"--
| it usually if not always seems to be a post-hoc excuse for a
| decision they've already made, or at the very least, a
| justification to move off the middle of the fence toward "no"
| instead of "yes." if anyone knows of anyone who's written
| something that contradicts this I would love to read it.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Most people I know are not having children because they don't
| have the economic stability to do so. Housing, individual
| low/middle income tax burden, cost of living, stagnated wages
| over the last several decades for all but the top 25%.
| reidjs wrote:
| The irony of this is that the people who care about the
| wellbeing of the planet enough to question having children due
| to climate concerns are the ones who really should be having
| children. They are more likely to raise them to be conscious of
| issues like this, to look for solutions, and to minimize their
| impact.
| cagenut wrote:
| On a long enough timeline I agree with your point, but your
| argument is one of the many many common examples we see now
| of people simply not understanding the timeline. 2050 is 29
| years away. Kids born in the next few years will barely be
| out of school by the time we have to have this mostly solved.
| cmpb wrote:
| True, but odds are by 2050 we will not have this mostly
| solved and we will still be arguing with each other about
| what's important when it comes to preserving the current
| climate vs adapting to a changing climate. I think that on
| the short timeline it definitely makes sense to use progeny
| as a means to effect change according to ones own ideals.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Yep, and even worse: it's the super-religious loonies that
| are pumping out children like no tomorrow.
| anonporridge wrote:
| Of much greater concern to me is the stability of my income
| potential in a world that's increasingly automated and career
| stability is gone.
|
| I feel like my default is no children, and that will only
| change if and only if I reach a level of wealth that I can feel
| very comfortable committing to the ~18 years of directly
| raising a new human, the 4+ years thereafter for continuing
| education, and all the costs associated with raising a well
| experienced and skilled human so they can have a chance at
| generating their own wealth.
|
| However, I also think inheritance is mostly a curse on people
| who receive it, so if I had children, I would raise them with
| the explicit expectation that I will pay for their education,
| but will likely have a hard cutoff of financial help after a
| certain milestone or age. And they can expect 0 inheritance.
| 14 wrote:
| The opportunities for our children is dwindling. I am a full
| time health care worker who works lots of overtime and I can
| not even come close to affording a house that fits me and my
| kids. I am desperately trying to save up but would need $100k
| to even get my foot in the door at today's market. To hear
| you say you would want to cut your child off seems so foreign
| to me. I want to get ahead enough in life that I can leave my
| kids with something. That is why in fact I just 2 weeks ago
| saw a financial advisor and am working on getting life
| insurance. I want to make my kids life a little easier then
| mine and with the way things are every cent I can leave them
| will help a lot. Hard work is not enough to do well in life
| anymore. Trust me my next check has 157 hours of pay coming.
| I still am not financially well off.
| anonporridge wrote:
| Part of the reason opportunities are dwindling is because
| generational wealth is accumulating more and more resources
| and rent seeking from the plebs who toil to survive. If
| you're not born into that club, it's very unlikely you'll
| enter it.
| manmal wrote:
| Can you inherit zero? Where I live, there is a mandatory
| minimum inheritance for children - I think it's 1/6 of the
| total?
|
| Cutting off financial help might result in them feeling stuck
| with their past choices, resulting in depression etc - I
| wouldn't do that. Many successful entrepreneurs come from
| supportive households.
| anonporridge wrote:
| I've never heard of a law like that.
|
| Where I live, a person has full discretion on who inherits
| their estate if they explicitly write their will. Your
| offspring and next of kin are the default inheritors, but
| can be excluded if you explicitly say so in your will.
| analog31 wrote:
| Well, we can't give them back. ;-) But it's something that I've
| thought about even though the die is already cast. I'm also not
| sure what country I'd want to bring kids into today.
| KerryJones wrote:
| There's a word for this: "antinatalism".
|
| -------
|
| The idea that it could be morally or ethically better to not
| have children feels like further in-depth thought out examining
| the specifics in attempt for a rational and non-emotional
| answer would yield a pretty strong "no". It is a vastly
| personal decision and I would encourage you to answer this for
| yourself personally and to try to look for the arguments of
| those who are saying the opposite of your close social friends
| (if they are saying "no", then look for people saying "yes", if
| they are saying "yes", look for people who are saying "no").
|
| The arguments that come to my mind:
|
| 1. The world has always been filled with an amount of danger to
| offspring, this is not more existential than it has been in the
| past (though it's often hyperbolized to be).
|
| 2. There are vast amounts of anecdotal stories about children
| who were "almost not born" (failed abortion, doctors or parents
| said it would be too hard, etc.) because of a parents decision
| who ended up having a hugely beneficial and/or great life.
|
| 3. There is a stronger effort now than ever before on
| correcting climate change. There are more opportunities than
| there ever have to make a difference. Your child could be one
| of these people.
|
| 4. I have seen no science that an additional child or children
| is going to inherently negatively increase climate change,
| which means having a motivated parent to better the world has a
| huge potential upside for the climate and low downside.
|
| ----
|
| An additional side, I would use any of amount of logic of
| "should have a child" either. If you don't want a child, I do
| not think you should have a child. A child needs love and
| compassion from its parents.
| cosmic_shame wrote:
| Yes. Interesting counterpoint from Scott Alexander:
| https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on...
| goldenchrome wrote:
| If you are strong and capable you should have kids to help
| build a better tomorrow. There aren't many young women who want
| to have kids because there aren't many young men who seem
| strong enough to bear the responsibility.
| testfoobar wrote:
| I wish you the best as you figure out the direction of your
| life.
|
| I'm a bit older and have kids. They've positively impacted my
| life in ways I could not have imagined when I was younger.
| Having said that, the speed of climate change and what feels
| like a global political class that is incapable of taking
| meaningful action, I am very concerned for my kids' near
| future. I cannot imagine a life without them, but I do wonder
| whether they will suffer, or whether my grand kids will suffer
| due to climate change. And so I wonder whether the joy and
| fulfillment they bring me will be worth any suffering they will
| be forced to endure. I cannot successfully do this computation.
| I am left with a persistent concern that will not lift.
|
| But then I think about people who had children during times of
| war and during famines. The urge to procreate is so amazingly
| strong.
|
| By definition the adults who will tackle climate change have to
| be conceived by the adults who will suffer from it.
| thriftwy wrote:
| "bringing a child into a world where they could potentially
| suffer real physical danger"
|
| People seem to think that "night is dark and full of terror" is
| a joke. Get used to it.
| g42gregory wrote:
| That's a pretty big and, later on, irreversible personal
| decision. You seem to take without question that the climate
| change could do all of these things. Not questioning your
| beliefs, but saying that you might want to be very sure about
| this, because of the irreversible personal impact. I would say
| that reading NYT probably not the way to get sure because of
| all the interest groups involved and getting paid to write the
| articles.
|
| Looking at the original data and verifying the math is a better
| approach. Or spot-checking the appropriate statements. For
| example, they say that there is a 97% consensus among climate
| scientists. I am afraid you may have to go and hand-count them,
| in order to see if you could get to 97%. I haven't done this
| analysis myself, but I am not facing such a big decision.
| sebow wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-12 23:01 UTC)