The ocean has a fever
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
> Data are currently available from September 1, 1981.
Seems like a short time range to analyze, but I guess most weather data is recent-ish.
[0] https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst
There are detailed contemporary human observations dating back a couple of centuries, on both land (at specific locations) and sea (mostly via ships logs). These can provide extensive direct measurement and are useful in calibrating other sources.
Remote satellite sensing of course dates back only to the late 1950s, and for the most part useful measurements to the 1970s and 80s. These are useful in being global and detailed, but of course offer limited timespans.
Proxy measures from an incredible array of biological and geological factors and indicators can provide strong indicia of extant conditions ranging from 100s to 1,000s to 1,000,000s of years. Among some that I'm aware of are isotope ratios in trapped gasses (found in ice cores, ranging back ~800,000 years), mineralisation of seashells and seashell-derived limestones (dating back 100s of millions of years), tree-ring data and pollen deposition in lakes and bogs (both dating back 10s of thousands of years), and again isotopic patterns in geological strata (cruder but ranging back billions of years), as well as signs of glaciation (indicating sub-freezing surface temperatures), of ancient seas, lakes, or rivers (indicating sea levels and precipitation patterns), dust deposition in seafloor strata (drill cores from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge were pivotal in determining periods of desertification and temperate climates in the Sahara / North African region), amongst others.
It's of course tricky to directly compare two different data series, but it's possible, and the narrative which emerges is both generally consistent and points to the critical role of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
<https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurement...>
<https://skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html>
<https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-...>
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/extended-reconstructed-ss...
Note also the most reliable data on this is probably from the Argo floats, there are about 4000 of them deployed globally (collected data besides SST, such as mixed-layer depth, salinity etc.), since 2000:
So during the age of sailing ships the oceans were warmer?
We’ve likely only had a 100 year period where we had a sufficient number of polluting ship to have made a difference
Highly unlikely, because of the many other factors involved, such as a completely different overall climate situation during that time period; A climate not nearly as heavily affected by human actions as the climate of today, to name just one of the most glaringly obvious factors.
A whiter cloud not reflect more sunlight back into space?
But researchers are now waking up to another factor..."
It seems like they might just already know that.
Fear, anxiety, desperation, helplessness. Guilt.
And ultimately it all boils down to a quiet numbness. Not comfortably numb, to coin a song. But vapidly numb. Unable to process any constructive fix for our kids that doesn't sound utterly silly.
organizations attempting to implement solutions or achieve progress on this issue are portrayed as irrational and occasionally prosecuted as domestic terrorists, so it makes sense that anyone might feel numb and stupid when thinking about the available options.
Read through, say, an official air crash report or industrial accident investigation, and slowly realise that what you're reading is an account of how some dozens of souls ended their existence. Often with a chain of events such that once the process had begun, the fate was inevitable, though it might have played out over many minutes or hours, possibly even longer.
In some ways it's an ultimate example of "show, don't tell".
You're not coining a new phrase with that, you're just referencing an existing song. Coining would mean you created the song yourself. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coin
For a little more context:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F0A3/production/...
Here's the source article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66387537
If the next few summers get even more extreme, we'll probably have to start geoengineering before the end of the decade (starting with spraying saltwater into the atmosphere), consequences be damned.
This was a policy choice and can be reversed.
Realistically since what I proposed above is non-viable? Increase the cost of producing fossil fuels through more direct means, of which discussion is banned on most of the public internet.
Nuclear does have a hope in changing this dynamic. But even then, fossil fuels have powerful advantages that won't be easily overcome any time in the next 10-15 years, at least.
The goal is to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere by whatever means work.
By the time it actually happens though it will be too late for a lotta people.
But the parent asked what we _should_ do.
Ya know, it's never the people calling for a war that end up putting it all on the line to actually fight said war.
You don't have to tax beef explicitly when you tax carbon because beef is carbon intensive and so the tax is implicit.
The problem is that carbon pricing is a political 3rd rail and also has no moat, so it's trivially easy for the a conservative government to pander and throw it out.
And do it all 20 years ago. Like everyone was saying at the time.
I’d say I’m disappointed and disgusted at humanity’s collective failure to act in the face of clear evidence. But I had massively low expectations.
The only solution would be for humanity to collectively agree to make fossil fuels incredibly expensive GLOBALLY...in some way or another. Whether that's through collective action or something else, I guess time will tell.
On most days, I think we are screwed.
Oil is much, much more valuable in the long term as a material commodity, not a fuel commodity. This can be realized if we bring down the price of power, which is happening, albeit in only part of the globe.
It is simple-minded to think that a single technological breakthrough will suddenly make the problem of climate change go away.
I agree that a single technological breakthrough is unlikely to solve climate change. It will require many. I am simply pointing out that it is incorrect to say that the only solution is a global cartel to make fossil fuels much more expensive.
When did we become such losers?
That's fine - I'm sure we'll get them one way or another
The first thing that I thought of when reading the headline was “more cowbell.” [0]
But in reality the answer is “less cowbell” as bovine emissions are a significant greenhouse gas [1] and cattle ranching in Brasil is linked to deforestation. [2]
0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Cowbell
1. https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustain...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/amazon...
Edit: added supporting links
Become more self-sufficient with more spread out plots of land to reduce shipping.
Explore and expand reusable containers.
Meatless Monday.
Design more efficient water-based appliances like sinks and showers.
Keep moving fwd w EVs.
At its worst its propoganda to convince people its ok to keep buying things and living as they currently do as the rich abscond with the profits.
If I were you I would be extremely suspicious of media that promotes these kind of tepid measures as effective.
The main effect on human and economic activity is that increased water vapor means more extreme weather events, as warm wet air holds more energy that can be violently released if a warm wet system runs into a cold dry polar system, so we can expect more major flooding events as these trends steadily continue. Clear-air water vapor also contributes to major heat waves during the summer, so those should continue as well, along with dry conditions in some regions leading to high fire risk. For individuals, this means living in wildfire zones, flood zones etc. has a high risk factor (which is also why insurance companies are fleeing those markets right now).
Practically the rational governmental response would be to put more funds into robust infrastructure (high temps mean high AC demand so more strain on the grid), more funds into emergency response for fires and floods and heat waves, and of course take major actions to eliminate fossil fuels from the energy mix as soon as possible... which is going to be a few decades at best, so adapting to these new conditions is pretty critical.