Oceans warming faster than anticipated, study finds

What is why, as time went on, more data was collected, and the science got more confident, the results get revised upwards.

The first google hit after searching on "IPCC political pressure" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...

Though that report is from 2014, it has been going for 20 years.

By the way, as a skeptic, you have access to the raw data yourself and can come up with a hypothesis that the oceans aren't warming and prove it yourself. http://www.argodatamgt.org/Access-to-data

I don't think climate change is worse than we thought. It's more that it's becoming acceptable to report it in those terms and gradually that's how the populace as a whole are coming to view it.

The key thing appears to be political will. You get the full spectrum of politicians. Some have been pushing for environmental policies since the 60's and 70's when it was very fringe (and scientists were already giving us plenty of warning - with claims of CO2 causing radical climate effects if unchecked... as it mostly has been). Then you've got the muppets who are still in denial and don't appear to give a shit about what sort of planet is left to the next generation(s).

Nope. That is law that don't exist.

In fact, do you remember "not bad thing come alone?". Things always can go wrong faster, and when things go wrong, them multiply and accelerate.

Think, for example, what happend if you lost your job. Then you get behind old debts. Then you get a lot of stress in family,. Then you think "lets drink a little / smoke pot" then you continue doing that....

When certains things go wrong, them multiply, amplify and create side-effects.

Or in other words, is like a computer crash. When the process get corrupted and you continue along without stop and diagnose properly...

“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

“Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that....”

There's a lot more money to be made by saying there's no global warming.

Others have addressed your direct question in more detail: the predictions keep getting worse because a) the original predictions were conservative (“there’s no way it can get that bad”, “there’s no way we won’t begin to react”, etc.), b) we’re getting more data from recent years as the planet does begin to warm and seeing that it’s happening faster than many models predicted so new models have to incorporate this new worrying information, and c) there’s often biases in reporting on top of these other things.

I don't buy a lot of the climate hysteria either, but for entirely different (and more depressing) reasons. I think that the reality is significantly worse than the scientists are portraying, but this doesn't matter much because we're still talking 2-4C over a century, and a century is a very long time in human progress. A century ago the world population was less than 2B, barely anyone had cars, North America and Europe were the only developed regions, coal was the predominant energy source, and hot cities like Las Vegas, Houston, and Phoenix were extremely undesirable places to live because of the lack of air conditioning. The media portrays the eventual flooding of NYC due to sea-level rise as an apocalyptic tragedy, but the fact is that several other cities (Galveston TX, New Orleans LA, Sacramento CA) have lost their pre-eminent economic position as a result of floods, and many others (Salem MA, Baltimore MD, Detroit MI and the rest of the rust belt) have from economic changes. Society adapts; people migrate and move from dying cities to new up-and-comers on more solid ground. A century is 3-4 generations, plenty of time for this migration to happen in terms of younger generations picking where they want to put down roots.

I think we're far more likely to go out in a blaze of war from the social strain that come from this large-scale migration. Humans don't do well with relative changes in social status or power levels. They tend to want to find somebody else to blame and fight. I'd give better-than-even odds that the climate is actually cooler at the end of this century than now, but only because we've triggered nuclear war and are in the midst of a nuclear winter.

Why do you think that?

Here's another motivation-based argument to think about: the organized, often irrational and sometimes threatening campaign of denial might have induced a tendency to discuss only the most bulletproof predictions, resulting in lowball estimates that will most likely rise as more evidence is uncovered.

2. They're measuring different things, obviously. One is measuring the mixture of gasses, the other is pure temperature.

The gas measurement is good for getting a picture of the entire system because it allows us to use basic chemistry, which is well understood, to gain a picture of the overall temperature change by looking at how much gas has escaped the ocean.

The ocean temperature data, while very useful, can still be subject to both sampling errors and problems with the analysis as far as how to interpret it in aggregate. Especially since you have to put overall weather patterns, like El Nino / La Nina, etc. into your analysis. There's always going to be uncertainty into how you should do analysis of the data over so many disparate points.

That's a fairly recent goalpost move as "warming is not occurring" has become an untenable position.

It's not a question of evidence at this point, it's a question of the limitless realms of ignorance.

You make a lot of very strong claims that you think are fair handed but are terribly biased. "solar farms that are super expensive and require crazy amounts of acres per watt". We can afford to cut taxes by $100B a year despite having a budget deficit. How crazy expensive is it for the US to maintain a vast military to secure our access to oil and gas (among other things)? We can afford $700B every single year to do that, but spending tens of billions of dollars on green energy would be crazy expensive. As for acres, we have lots of them to spare.

Yes, wind farms kill birds. Do the people who point this out ever weigh that against the number of dead animals and people and reduced health from coal and oil? Do they really care about the birds? Have they ever made an omelette?

Classifying electric cars as a "magic solution" is silly; they are just one small part of an incremental solution. Nobody says they are magic or the total solution. Your verbiage is emotion based and not fact based. Apparently these tactics worked on you, but I find them lazy and not compelling.

Finally, addressing your overall point: If I'm fat, I should eat better. You are right to say that cutting out sugar from my coffee won't solve my problems if I continue eating two hamburgers and fries for lunch. But to reason that I might as well have the sugar in my coffee because I haven't cut down on everything else is just factually wrong. Incomplete solutions may still buy time to address those other issues, and incrementally reducing use may mean we still suffer terrible consequences, but perhaps not quite as intensely.

The west is harming the planet disproportionately. We've been doing it a lot longer, so most of the existing and baked in future warming was produced by the west. Apart from that we still produce a lot more CO2 per capita. The united states alone produces 15% of emissions today. The rest of the world is just trying to catch up to where we are.

The buck doesn't stop there though, a huge chunk of the developing worlds emissions are producing stuff for the west. They aren't responsible for that, we are for buying it.

It seems like you expect the poorest developing countries to lead the way. Has the west become so incapable of actually leading?

BTW, developed countries are harming the planet disproportionally. Per capita emissions are way higher. What you write about solar and wind is mostly FUD.