Study: Rate of Heat Absorption Of Oceans Has Doubled Since 1997

earth-screensaver_largeWe have another study indicating the rapidly worsening situation due to global climate change. A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, shows that the amount of man-made heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997. That absorption is much higher than anticipated and portends greater threats to ocean life as well as the continuing worsening of intense storms.

More than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world’s oceans instead of the ground. However, this study used data going back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s to track the rate of absorption and rise in temperatures. The results are very alarming. According to the report, the world’s oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years. To get an idea of the energy level: “if you exploded one atomic bomb the size of the one that dropped on Hiroshima every second for a year, the total energy released would be 2 zettajoules.” Thus, since 1997, Earth’s oceans have absorbed man-made heat energy equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for 75 straight years.

The most alarming aspect is the exponential growth element. The pace of warming is speeding up. Even small increases in the ocean temperature can have massive impacts on ocean life and storms. Moreover, as the oceans warm, they absorb less . . . which means that heat stays in the air and on land surface.

The illustration below shows the increasingly hot areas in red as tracked through the years:


77 thoughts on “Study: Rate of Heat Absorption Of Oceans Has Doubled Since 1997

  1. Our resident gumshoe will tell you that all that science is just so much scare tactics by the, well he’ll tell ya. He and Trump think that it’s all a hoax made up by the Chinese.

  2. Can someone explain to me why leftist dopes believe the following?

    1. Islam is a religion of peace.
    2. Climate change is real.
    3. The more debt a nation racks, the wealthier the nation will be.

    Now, anyone with a modicum of intelligence and common sense knows that these three statements are lies. But leftist dopes are different. They not only believe these things are true, but they insist on shoveling these lies at every opportunity.

    I have already explained countless times what Islam is all about, so there’s no need to go into that again, though I realize that leftist dupes still cannot grasp reality. But let me try with the climate change lie.The most famous global warming con artist, Al Gore, famously said on Sept. 21, 2007, that “scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, ‘falling off a cliff.’ One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now.” But the reality is that the North Polar icecap has EXPANDED–just the opposite of what Gore (disingenuously) “predicted.”

    However, there is one very important fact about global warming that is true: global warming has heated up the bank accounts of the global warming scamsters to unprecedented “temperatures.” Al Gore’s bank account, for example, has gone from a mere $2 million “degrees” to over $200 million “degrees.” That’s a big increase in monetary heat! And that’s really what the global warming scam is all about: raising the monetary “temperatures” of the global warming insiders’ bank accounts at the expense of the taxpayers.

  3. When fault or error begins to happen in any system, failures are rarely linear in their rate. It usually becomes more of a parabolic or exponential increase over time since multiple faults are spawned which increase the generations of failures.

  4. Yep ralph its all about carbon credits. In fact there is a place in arizona that captures the sun’ s energy by mirrors and turns it into electrcity here on earth…..captures what would be refected..,,and makes steam, green house gasses be damned. Full steam a head….and tree huggers dont even know what it takes to make a tree. Oh….co2 and nitrogen….their models dont even have a nitrogen parameter. Do you know how much nitogen gets to earth with storms?…..yuge.! Water and nitrogen are good. To god’$ green earth.

  5. Turleys problem is he loves the grand canyon but doesn’ t appreciate its powerful source. Loves zion. Ignores its maker. Loves the bad lands oblivious to how. Oblivous to the fact 99 is uninhabited. And dust be dust. Afraid to lunatic levels the planet he is a mere speck on….cant adapt. It can. Moreover the gov can say there is a “consensus” till the day is long. As an atmospheric scientist i know twenty who dont agree. And they know twenty. Etc. Then i went to law school. Took business and securities from the best. First time i heard of “carbon credits ” was international law. At boulder, suppose the next time that creek floods china will be to blame.

  6. People can whine about carbon taxes all they want, but it doesn’t change the evidence gathered independently by myriad sources, from satellite monitoring to Antarctic ice cores. (I trust NASA a tad more than the snowman-brained James Inhofe.)

    Millions and millions of cars and houses and buildings and industries use energy every day and pollute massively as a result.

    To think we’re not contributing to an ecological imbalance is a wild mixture of ignorance and arrogance. Because whenever there is a reported threat to wildlife or plants or bodies of water or air quality, there’s often a verifiable connection with human activity.

    If humanity stopped polluting completely, I think it’s still too late; we’re circling the drain, unfortunately. And so solutions no matter how radical seem futile.

    Nevertheless, denying science doesn’t help.

  7. Religious folk presuppose the answer then look for support in their holy book. Southern slavers looked in one verse and northern abolitionists another.

    Global Warming is like religion and agnostics and atheists — those who want more evidence, and those who say man’s role is trivial, are apt parallels.

    Of course the journal “Nature Climate Change” (note the title presupposes the answer) proclaims Climate Change is real. And Islam is a religion of peace …

    When A. Einstein was told that 150 physicists disagreed with him he replied, “If I was wrong it would take just 1.”

    I am agnostic. I look at GW atheists’ arguments. The data shows we are in a ten-year cooling period. Yes, the climate always changes naturally. The hokey stick keeps getting pushed farther into the future. Not in our lifetime, but in our children’s! The end-of-the-world predictions of preachers by the score.
    The antithetical group proposes a mini-Ice-Age. To them it is all about the Sun. Cycles predict a mini Ice Age due to less of the single most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, evaporating from the seas.Every night a cloudless night — clear and cold. So far, just a small set of prophets of weather like 1400-1800.

    In the time since Al Gore founded the Church of Global Warming there has been a schism. The Church of Climate Change was born when the predicted Global Warming hockey stick was not (yet) happening. As usual, preachings of this new Government established Church predict imminent disaster — the End is Coming Soon! Give us more money so we can save Our Great Country.

  8. Those who can: do. Those who can’t: preach. Those who can’t preach: preach to preachers. And that is true in religion, math, science, and all things debatable. For myself there is but one religion: Eighth Day Dog Adventism. For myself there is but one science: dog science. As to Math: I do not divide. As to debate: I fart.

    For those of you who can get past the stink I think we should not worry about global warming. I am in North Carolina and it is 21 degrees F. I went out on all four paws, took a dump and retreated back to the dog pac bunkhouse and a warm propane fireplace is heating the room. Oh, I know that the heat will escape up the chimney into the atmosphere and warm the Earth. But let me give you non dogs some guidance: be firm in what you believe in. Believe in what you preach. If you cannot preach then eat a peach. Fart twice on Sunday if subjected to a sermon, whether it is on the mont or not. Those who go to church on Sunday, fart, and they are responsible for global warming.

  9. Labeling climate science as religion does nothing. It doesn’t address the data collected by universities worldwide, it ignores the data and the process by which the data were acquired.

    Year to year the temperature fluctuates. But the general trend, beyond a tiny decade, swings upward significantly.

    Skepticism is science. But questioning and flat-out denying aren’t the same. And when consensus builds, it does so because evidence increases. It isn’t the same as baseless faith, be it Islam or any other monotheistic nonsense.

  10. Another Government / Media Lie
    Global Warming is a scam
    ‘Global warming the greatest scam in history’ claims founder of Weather Channel
    John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, “I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”

  11. I am a professional observer of human behavior. My specialty is assessing individuals for their veracity. However, I also have coached baseball, and taught middle school and high school, which helped me also understand group dynamics. Here is the dynamic. Thirty years ago the evangelical environmentalists meme was we were going to be out of oil. As that was proven to be a BIG LIE then another tactic became critical. As more oil is discovered, and the price of oil plunges, the spittle is forming in the corners of the evangelical environmentalists mouths. They are becoming frenetic and sadly desperate. A new lie was needed. Global Warming was it, and the doom and gloom and desperation has increased directly related to the discovery of new sources of carbon energy and the decrease in oil prices/

    Do we need to conserve. YES! Do we need to have more fuel efficient vehicles. YES! We need to make incremental changes adjusting to our environment based on TRUTH, not on religious lies. Economics are a fundamental force of nature. When alternative sources of energy are developed that are ECONOMICALLY competitive, then they will compete in the marketplace. Evangelical Environmentalists want to usurp economics. It won’t work.

  12. The world have survived over hundreds of millions of years, with no global warming BS and it will continue to survive.

    This mantra is another means for Liberals/Democrats to take our money for their nefarious purposes. Anyone who believes in “Global Warming”, is seriously misguided. Even scientists bicker over the facts and some have admitted to lying about the facts. Lmao!

  13. No mention of cigarette smoking. There was a tv news show on about the pollution in Red China and they showed the cloud of pollution in some city where it was so thick that you could not see a whole building a block away. Yet all the dorks walking around were smoking cigarettes. Not that the cigarettes caused the smog. But when they all croak the global warming will be blamed not the suicide from tobacco. And when they croak the death certificate will say cause of death was cardiac arrest or somesuch even though the main illness was lung cancer and the cause of the cancer was the tobacco since age 12.

    We from Planet Remulak put tobacco in the hands of farmers in the original 13 colonies so that there would be some limit to population. It has worked fine. Stay with it. Do not worry about the smog when you are a cigarette smoking dog. No offense to dogs on blog.

  14. Facts:

    90+% of the world’s collective brain power tells us that there is global warming and humans play a significant part, contributing to the phenomenon through various activities, such as burning fossil fuels

    The advent of anything new will upset the status quo and in the case of responding to global warming by doing nothing, by denying it, or by dismissing 90+% of the world’s scientists’ findings is nothing more than maintaining the status quo.

    The only thing mankind can do is to reduce mankind’s contribution to global warming by burning less fossil fuels, less carbon emitting substances, and as an added gesture reducing pollutants.

    The economical change from energy derived from fossil fuels to energy derived from renewable sources will create enormous wealth; unfortunately not for the oligarchs funded by fossil fuels. The changes to the infrastructure will create energy efficiency a good thing regardless of the source. The technology involved in evolving renewable energy will advance technology in general and create enormous wealth-example the recent tech revolution that saved America’s a**. And so on; any fool off of the street, professional or amateur observer or not should be able to see this.

    The worst thing for any economy or people is stagnation. The greatest advances in recent human history have been made through revolutions: industrial, agricultural, transportation, technological…., and now energy.

    The only problem is illustrated by the oligarchs or status quo, their self appointed experts, and the still unfortunate number of a**e* pointing to the sun with the other ends buried in the sand, probably looking for more fossil fuels.

    Only fools deny something because of a past paradigm without examining that something on its own merits. The cow is brown. The car is brown. Therefore the car is a cow, or the cow is a car.

  15. Looking at the data, I see that in fact between 2004 and 2014 the average global temperature has INCREASED by 0.2 degrees Celsius, so no, the planet is not cooling. This on top of the fact that we are up on average about 1.0 degrees Celsius since the base period in the 1950’s. The long term trend is very clear. Someone who cherry picks there data can show that at times there really has been short periods where the global average actually did decline, but that is dishonest.

    Also looking at the data, arctic sea ice is still below the average sea ice extent between 1981 and 2010, so no the arctic sea ice is not more expansive. That and the fact that the summer minimum is lower and longer is the really important data since that is when the dark arctic ocean water absorbs the most heat rather than reflect it .

    J needs a lesson on how a power plant works, especially one that uses solar energy to produce the electricity. The solar power plant reflects the suns energy onto a tower filled with molten salt which is then used to generate steam which is then used to spin a turbine which is hooked to a generator. The steam is then CONDENSED and returned to the process. Boiler feed water is very high quality and very expensive, so it is not wasted. Some waste heat is dumped during the condensing stage using low quality water. This is what is happening in the cooling towers you may see as many power plant. What is coming out of those cooling towers is water, nothing else. In the case of a fossil fuel powered plant, there is ALSO a stack emitting the combustion products into the atmosphere. Using the suns energy to produce electricity is FAR less detrimental to the atmosphere than burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide has a very long term life in the atmosphere whereas water vapor is generally short lived.

    A little lesson on nitrogen as well. Plants do not use nitrogen from the atmosphere; it must be fixed nitrogen in the soil. The earths atmosphere is approximately 79% nitrogen and is generally inert. We don’t significantly add nitrogen to the atmosphere and even if we added as much nitrogen to the atmosphere as we have added carbon dioxide, we would not even notice it probably. But, the amount of carbon dioxide we have added has literally doubled the amount in the atmosphere.

  16. The journal Nature Climate Change says it all in its introductory paragraph; “We show that the multi-model …..”.
    I’m sure I can concoct a ‘model’ that will show we are entering an ice age. Give us a break. As soon as the climate change scientists are off the government teat I may start believing their ‘research’.

  17. Nick, saying that economics is a fundamental force of nature does not mean it won’t kill all of us. It may be that economics would say to continue using fossil fuels is the smart economical thing to do, but at what price? If the real price of using fossils fuels was realized, they would not be the best choice, but we fool ourselves by not accounting for the real cost.

    Yes Lisa, the Earth will go on, but a lot of the life on it may not, including us. Will the planet adapt? Sure it will. The real question is, will we? So far, I don’t think we are going to make it. As Issac points out, 90+% agree that we are causing global climate chgange, so to pick out the few who say otherwise is cherry picking your information. That is dishonest. I just don’t understand why people seek out and believe the few who deny the truth on whatever basis is beyond me. We need to seek the truth, not the crackpots.

  18. Doubter Dave, when the climate change deniers are off the oil companies teats and the religious cuckoos teats, I might listen to their research.

  19. What has the population done since 1995. The U.S. has lessen pollution since 1995, seems to me the Chinese are the big time polluters so you better get your a$$ over there and do something about them. Seeya

  20. Well said Darren!! Nonlinear parabolic weather cockups are what is likely in store.
    But the Kroch brothers say it aint so!

  21. However:

    Climate change is real alright, but to the extent it is caused by humans or volcanos or sunspots, that is not quite so clear.

    And that matters. If CO2 emissions from humans is NOT the main cause, then best to spend money on REMEDIATION and quit wasting effort on limiting the lesser factors leading to change.

    It may be irreversible with or without human factors. Best then to focus on resettling the global coastal populations. But, what do the rich care, they are mostly poor anways. Let them drown is probably the attitude.

    Kind of like how Soros sends all the lumpenproles into a tizzy, which makes them act stupidly and burn their own nests– when he could have tried to teach them how to behave better in the first place.

    Soros and the Kroch brothers are two sides of the same “coin.” Filthy lucre!

  22. Isaac tellingly begins his mislabeled “facts” spiel with a statistical fabrication of complete fantasy. That style of ignorant zealotry is what leads many of us who are agnostic about Global Warming Theory to conclude there is more bluster than science behind it. Combining it with paid theatrics of the political class (Gore, et. al.), gov’t handouts, and gov’t mandates leads us to be skeptical and watch our wallets. I’ll continue to look for more than the paucity of data currently presented which has, to date, mostly contradicted the IPCC models. This study is another interesting data point, but mostly cryptic in what it portends for the future; basically, another Rorschach test for one’s preexisting beliefs on the subject.

  23. If 97% of all the structural engineers told you that a bridge was not safe, would you find another route? Would you support fixing the bridge? Or would you pack the family in your van and let Jesus take the wheel?

    Conservatives love to say that they are not scientists, but they usually go on to conclude somehow that not being a scientist means you don’t have to listen to scientists. (side note: most of them aren’t doctors either, but that doesn’t stop them from wanting to regulate women’s bodies)

    Folks who think that god controls the weather, or that jesus is coming back to fix everything are almost as dangerous as the greedy SOB’s who are doing for climate change what they did for tobacco: hide, obfuscate, lie and steal right up to the very last moment. Unfortunately, this isn’t just millions of people dying from lung cancer, this is the whole planet.

  24. Daren

    I think you are referring to the ‘Tipping Point’, although in a much convoluted manner. I don’t usually take that much time to interpret this stuff.

  25. As Dog is my witness, climate change is a farce and the whole debate needs to focus on specific causes of pollution such as burning of coal and farting females in Islamic pirate territories. The rise of temperature in Egypt has been substantial in the past six hundred years and it coincides with the rise of Islam where the woman fart so much that passing gas on a bicycle is a proven method of transportation. Fart lighting contests in Egypt are fun and games. Been there, done that, with Bin Laden and my arse still hurts.

  26. Anthropogenic global warming is a lie.

    Do we have any science and math buffs in the house? For all serious minds who wish to arrive at the truth, this hard math must be double checked: Vapor Tiger.

    From the end,

    “Note: To any reader I will send the PDF file of “Vapor Tiger” that explains all this in easily understood text and math. Request from:

    Please, I urge any and all who want to verify through numbers themselves- email Adrian and request a copy of his PDF. Or if you’re feeling rich, you can go buy it on Amazon as an ebook.

  27. How you can post such ilke after 2 United Nations top dogs and liar John Kerry have all come out in the past 4 months admitting that global warming/climatechange – whatever you want to call it has all been a scam to ruin the economy and gain control of the world left standing. Why do people like you refuse to go after the original liars and put them in jail – Prince Char;es, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Rockefellers and all the rest? You are just as bad!

  28. “Global Warming:” Major snowstorm may threaten DC to NYC
    “The potential exists for a major snowstorm to affect more than 50 million across the eastern United States at the end of the week.”
    Watch out Al Gore, don’t burn up in that ‘Global Warming’

    Credit: Ulf Bodin / Flickr

  29. Daren

    Ozone depletion is a major contributor to global warming. The ozone layer mitigates the sun’s effects regarding heating. Thirty-forty years ago it was noticed that large holes in the ozone layer began to appear. The world reacted by banning fluorocarbons and other ozone depleting substances. Obviously not a complete ban as there are a lot of idiot nations out there as well as idiots who dismiss anything the majority of the scientific community comes up with. The ozone layer problem was visible. Since taking action by replacing ozone depleting chemicals with other, probably bad in other ways but benign in the case of ozone depletion, stuff, the ozone layer has been documented visibly to have substantially repaired itself.

    This entire ozone exercise supports the theory that humans can make a mess of things but humans can also rectify, to some degree, the damage they do.

    Economically no body suffered. Air conditioning continued. It was a good thing. It is still not completely fixed but substantially so.

  30. Didn’t NASA/JPL claim a few years ago the planet Mars was experiencing ‘global warming’? Last I checked, there are no SUV’s – or drivers for them – on Mars.

    For those who subscribe to the religion of ‘Global Warming’/’Climate Change’, and believe “less carbon emitting substances” will save the planet, please halt your respiration for an extended period (I suggest 10-50 yrs).

    Then, if earth temps continue to increase, I’ll join your church …

  31. Patriot

    Allying yourself with Inhofe absolutely, irreparably, indisputably, without any room for recourse, negates anything you might have to say. The man is an idiot, has proved himself so, and is nothing more than a puppet for those with skin in the game.

    There is always room for positions and arguments on each side of an issue. There is no room for those surfaced by Inhofe. Google his explanation of sea levels and icebergs using an ice cube and a glass of water.

  32. calypso, These folks are religious fanatics. Their Pope is Gore, a congenital liar and buffoon. ‘Nuff said!

  33. What a grand irony. The American Founders depicted at the top of the page on a blog of the “preeminent constitutional scholar” and all we read are headlines about a banana republic or that the “sky is falling,” when non-anthropogenic climate change has always existed and will exist forever, and no such thing as the redistributive welfare state with affirmative action, etc. is mentioned anywhere in the founding documents that the historical figures at the top of this page produced in their seminal endeavor to end dictatorial monarchy and develop a restricted-vote republic as a representative governance, in stark contrast to one man, one vote democracy.

    Maybe a better focus and subject for analysis would be the words of Ben Franklin when he said we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.” Anybody seen that “republic” of Ben Franklin lately?

    Seems something like misrepresentation here.

  34. Congratulations, Professor! Your list of crazy followers continues to grow. Not like the old days, eh Professor?

  35. “Every major computer model is now forecasting double-digit snowfall totals for the D.C. area Friday and Saturday.”

    It’s getting hot in here! Everybody take off your clothes and run in the snow yelling, “I’m burning up!”

    Al Gore said it is ok.

  36. Calypso> Really? The WSJ? That bastion of impartial journalism owned by Ruprecht Murduck and subsumed to every CO2 polluting industry in the world? Why would anyone trust them with anything?

    Thanks for playing though. I guess we’re back to our corners…

  37. issacbasonkavichi,

    Hear, hear.

    Inhofe is one of those bozos who think that god is managing the thermostat. And everything else. He should he laughed out of town, but they keep voting for him.

  38. Yeah, I hear you about the source, PhillyT, but their analysis of how that overhyped and under-scienced poor statistical usage entered the discussion is spot on. You can feel free to find confirmation of that takedown in Forbes or Reuters or RCP or any of about a dozen other sources. Tellingly, on the flip side you’ll find no one supporting the veracity of the statistical methods of that claim.

    So anyway, please feel free to say you think MANY climate scientists agree on man-made global warming, or perhaps even a majority. Just please refrain from making the indefensible claim that there’s a 97% consensus. Thus endeth the Public Service Announcement.

  39. Someone here was floating the “99%” lie the last time the holy rollers were speaking in tongues on Global Warming. They do love to one up each other. Hell, if your gonna make stats up, go all in, why not 100%??

  40. If I die before I am dead, I pray to Dog to pet my head. For if there is another life, I hope I get there without strife. A B C spells liquor store and out you go Gore.

  41. I am not really making fun of Al Gore or any global warmer pundits, I was just jesting a myself for participating in this debate/debacle today. The times they are a changing.

  42. In the actual study:

    “Our model-based analysis suggests that nearly half of the industrial-era increases in global OHC have occurred in recent decades, with over a third of the accumulated heat occurring below 700 m and steadily rising.”

    Their analysis relies on computer models. In addition, it includes measurements taken from the 1800s.

    “Observed value and uncertainty estimate12 is based on measurement differences from the Challenger expedition (1872–1876) and Argo (2004–2010)”.

    Just keep in mind that we are using a computer model to search for an anthropogenic cause, by comparing data taken in the 1800s with present day. How accurate were the instruments in the 1800s?

    And the article states its specific intention is to explain the pause in global warming:

    “Recently, as a result of the so-called surface warming hiatus, there has been considerable interest in global ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the deeper ocean, including natural and anthropogenically forced changes identified in observational5, 6, 7, modelling8, 9 and data re-analysis10, 11 studies.”

    There have been so many instances of wrongdoing in the climate science field (for instance many stations being moved or missing altogether while allowing their data to be included). It’s made me jaded.

    The climate has always changed, and it always will. If we go extinct and another life form rises to dominance, they had better be adaptable because climate change is the norm. During the time of dinosaurs, the Earth was much greener, and dinosaurs roamed what is now Antarctica, granted it was situated a bit closer to the equator.

    Maybe people are affecting the climate, maybe not. We do know with certainty that we have polluted our entire ocean, contaminating the food chain with mercury. We pollute our air and water. We de-vegetate the planet, removing the very plant biomass that function as oxygen factories, air scrubbers, and Carbon removal. If we ever manage to damage marine algae and phytoplankton, we could very well engineer our own extinction level event.

    But Anthropogenic Climate Change has all the cache. It funds the grants. Has the sex appeal for the actors to patronize. The present dangers get pushed aside while everyone scrambles for the funding, credits, taxes, and business opportunities. Meanwhile, we put warnings against pregnant women and children eating fish.

    I recall hearing at a meeting before a massive re-org:

    Change is good. Expect more good things.

  43. They must be talking global warming since the last ice age? Gee weather changes and there’s nothing you can do about it

  44. Patriot, you note that “Global Warming” is alleged while a “Major snowstorm may threaten DC to NYC.” That’s why the Church of Global Warming was renamed the Church of Climate Change — as ghsteele has creatively referred to its adherents. They are constantly modifying their unsubstantiated allegations with new ones. Among their more recent ones is that “Climate Change” also causes extreme cold. In other words, if anything “bad” with the weather happens, blame it on “Climate Change” — too cold, too hot, too humid, too much rain; you name it.

  45. The rise of global temperature will not be stopped. Climate change will produce scarcity of food and water. We will see rationing and food riots in our country. We will also see, and I think demand, an increase in police powers to contend with a rise of lawlessness brought about by the unemployed poor. The DOD will have to expand to engage other countries for their resources. We will change our way of life because we will be forced to. We can make this reality a catastrophe or one that is survivable. It’s up to us.

  46. Karen,
    I like what you said. This is our one and only planet. We have poisoned the water and the land. I think we have poisoned the air as well in multiple ways. We need to clean it all up. We need to end the idea that cleaning up after yourself is not part of the product life cycle.

    There is no planet B as they say.

    Even if it turns out that climate change is over-hyped, or under-studied, or incorrectly analyzed (none of which I personally believe), what is it exactly that we have to lose by cleaning up our act? Can anyone explain that to me? What is wrong with having drinkable water, breathable air, beauty in nature, a livable planet? I just don’t get it.

  47. I agree with PhillyT.
    Bad drinking water issues are coming to the fore. That problem in Flint, MI is really bad.
    One thing which you all will have to accept and that is that dogs have to poop somewhere and do not have toilets. If we purposely poop in some dork’s yard it is to make a statement. We are prudent otherwise but sometimes we are confined to a yard or whatnot. So bear with us.

  48. PhillyT and Karen

    The most astounding part of resistance to evolving from fossil fuels, pollutants, and all the other ways mankind has and continues to be destroying the planet is that cleaning up the mess and developing clean energy is the next big economy that will generate fortunes for all the future Koch bros and Gates, etc. A healthy economy is one where money is moving. When money moves jobs are created and people get rich. The dispersal of the costs would not be felt in the increase in prices for any of the poisons we produce.

    Waste management is already a trillion dollar industry. The infrastructure is there with models created by societies that can’t simply toss the garbage to the side. There are floating islands the size of Texas composed of garbage in the Pacific and other oceans. Out of sight, out of mind, until you eat the twisted fish that have morphed out of the plastic.

    The fact that the tech economy is built on the manufacture and consumption of stuff that is at least 50% unnecessary, only for amusement, and yet it all creates jobs, wealth, by moving money should be enough to convince anyone that by charging for the garbage we create we could develop an industry to address it, either by reducing it and/or removing it. The only thing in the way of a better and cleaner planet regardless of the socialist/capitalist mix is complacency, ignorance, and the status quo. I would have no problem with the corruption that exists in today’s industries that pollute if they existed in industries that addressed the pollution. Ten percent more would have little if any negative effect on anyone. Regarding gas alone, the money would be there to repair the infrastructure and fund clean energy for transportation.

    There is big money to be made. Isn’t that reason enough?

  49. David,

    I couldn’t agree more. Isaac’s diatribe about the ozone “hole” is case in point. The ozone debate is still quite alive with many holes (pun intended) in the hypothesis. I will give the tree huger’s credit though, they sure have a great marketing dept. “Ozone Hole” and “Global Warming” conjure up such great fear when spoken. And just like Silent Spring”, when the truth finally does come out, the tree huger’s lies have already done their damage.

    I do have a question for all of the Isaac’s out there. What is the average climate for the area that you live?

    Interesting article and good comments.

    “Clyde Spencer October 27, 2015 at 7:15 pm
    Some other things to consider: Most ozone is produced in the tropics and moves pole-wards. When the southerly ozone encounters the Winter Antarctic vortex, it is prevented from reaching the South Pole until the vortex breaks up in the Spring. Thus, an anomalous ozone-high is produced outside the vortex, which quickly moves into the so-called ‘hole’ once the vortex breaks up. The ozone that is catalytically destroyed when the sun first illuminates the ozone layer in early Spring cannot be replaced by the tropical ozone until the vortex breaks up. Additionally, when the ‘hole’ is at its greatest extent, the sun is low on the horizon and the rays have a long path length, initially entering the stratosphere outside the ‘hole.’ The sun never gets directly above the ‘hole!’ Also, the footprint of UV rays on the ground is large because of the high angle of incidence. (i.e. the sunlight is ‘weak.’)

    Because I always read about the potential for damage from UV, but never saw any data on ground-level UV (Does this sound familiar?), I created a spreadsheet to estimate the UV flux based on data from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer and taking into account all the astronomical parameters as in your diagram. What I discovered was that there appeared to be a drift upward in the Winter values, when the UV flux was quite low. However, when protection was most needed, in the Summer, there seemed to be no change in the maximum values of UV, values which the ecosystem had evolved to deal with.”

  50. Jim22

    If, indeed, all those who make up 90+% of the world’s scientists are wrong and you and your spreadsheets have the answer, have debunked it all, eureka, etc., that does nothing to weaken my argument. The economy would be enhanced, great wealth would be created and redistributed, and perhaps just in case you are talking out of the other end, we might be doing some good. Otherwise, I guess you are right and 90+% of the world’s scientists are wrong. I hear Jim Inhofe is looking for reputable scientists. Give him a call. Take a glass of water and a tray of ice cubes with you.

  51. Isaac,

    You never answered my question. What is the average climate supposed to be where you live?

    Also, explain to me your obsession with Inhofe, ice and water? If proof is needed that ice displaces it’s mass in water so when melted it doesn’t raise the water level, well, that’s pretty easy to prove and well understood.

    I would discredit at least half of your supposed 90% for being on the government dole somehow just like you would never accept a scientist from energy industry, unless he agreed with you. To me, true science is dead.

  52. Global Warmists are the new Malthusians with their Chicken Little forecasts. If and when Global Warming occurs, it is actually predicted to bring increased crop productivity to most of the northern hemisphere, increasing capacity in the most productive food producing regions on Earth.

    Of course we ALL want cleaner air and water … and we’re getting it. The quality of both is far improved over the last few decades, and the number of trees in the US has risen steadily since the 70s.

    And Isaac obliviously storms on with the discredited “90%” blather. Sigh.

  53. Jim22

    In the 11 years we have been in North East Florida our winter has gone from three+ months using the heat to three+ weeks. My intimate understanding with the North West of the US and the South West of Canada illustrates similar ‘warming’. I grew up in the Canadian Maritime provinces and as I understand by reading he papers, their summers are getting longer and their winters are getting shorter.

    This, however, is not my point. If you have read carefully, my point is that reducing and stopping pollution, evolving from fossil fuels to renewables, etc cannot hurt the planet and IF indeed we are contributing to Global Warming, if indeed there is Global Warming, doing so would be the right thing to do. So, whether it is needed to Save the Planet or not it is a good thing economically to create and redistribute wealth, what it is all about.

    Now, to respond to the ice cube in the glass of water thing; I almost would like to let it ride and imagine a light bulb over your head coming on, some day, or perhaps not. However, Inhofe is an idiot as he has proven on a regular basis. This is not unusual as lots of idiots are regularly elected, Bush a case in point. What Inhofe is doing with such panache and authority when he places an ice cube in a glass of water and performs his second grade science experiment has nothing to do with the rise in sea level from melting ice. It is a similar sideshow to his bringing a snowball indoors. Anyone convinced that there is no global warming from witnessing these maneuvers is a dupe.

    The vast amounts of ice on the planet that are melting, this is factual, are to be found over the ground, above sea level, where they are a result of precipitation, evaporating from the planet’s oceans and lakes, and being frozen as glaciers and other ice formations miles and miles and miles thick, over many years. When this ice melts, due to global warming regardless of the cause, the melted water returns to the oceans and lakes and their levels rise. The North and South polar ice caps are melting at an increasing rate and factoring in the application of the ‘tipping point’, their melting could increase at a rate that could, some day, be irreversible. The Planets’s Oceans could rise several meters. This would spell disaster to billions.

    The issue of the tipping point is also one that is not surfaced regularly enough. The vast amounts of dead stuff resulting from life in the oceans typically falls to the deepest places and turns into methane gas. The cold water keeps the methane gas way down, miles and miles at the bottom. As the oceans heat up, there will come a time when the gas will rise into the atmosphere where it will exponentially exacerbate the situation. This is also true with the vast amounts of potential methane gas-from rotting flora-found in the ‘tundra areas’. Who knows it may already be too late and the argument may only be between people living in the foothills of mountain ranges and the vast majority of the world’s population that live ‘next the sea’.

    I don’t know with whom to be disappointed, me for allowing myself to the drawn into explaining this obvious fact, or you who asked for this explanation. Either way, it’s, as our leading carnival barker often exclaims, sad, so sad.

  54. Isaac,

    “The North and South polar ice caps are melting at an increasing rate and factoring in the application of the ‘tipping point’, their melting could increase at a rate that could, some day, be irreversible. The Planets’s Oceans could rise several meters.”

    Being that I graduated with a B.S. in Geology, I’m curious, what land mass does the northern ice cap rest on?

    So in a nut shell, your point is, some claim should be able to be made, factual or not, and whole industries/economies should have to take the risk of collapse based on this claim. It amazes me that you are surprise that there would be push back on such a philosophy.

    I will ask yet again, what is the average climate for northern FL?

  55. Jim22

    The Southern land mass is Antarctica, well documented in many Sci-fi movies and available to google. The Northern land masses are composed of Greenland, Baffin Island, etc. Greenland is the second largest ice cap after Antarctica. If you took any other classes the land masses that lie under the glaciers are all there, trust me. The predominant ice cap does consist of an area on the Arctic ocean, however, the ice that, when it melts as it is melting, will cause the oceans to rise is the ice on the land masses. I have not read any reports by geologists or geographers that argue the fact that if that ice melts it will not cause the ocean levels to rise.

    All this is nothing more than 90+% of the world’s scientists saying what I am saying and less than 10% of the world’s scientists disagreeing. Pick your side. That is not my point. My point is that throughout history mankind has advanced through innovation and revolution, economic, industrial, technological, religious, social, etc. Its all there in the history books. Changing from fossil fuels to renewables, arresting the pollution of the earth, and cleaning up the mess is a revolution that will benefit mankind in every way, except of course as pertains to those with their heads buried in the sand. It’s the old status quo problem and idiots like Inhofe are, unfortunately, the status quo.

    Regarding the history of temperature change in my part of the world, look it up.

  56. PhillyT:

    “Even if it turns out that climate change is over-hyped, or under-studied, or incorrectly analyzed (none of which I personally believe), what is it exactly that we have to lose by cleaning up our act? Can anyone explain that to me? What is wrong with having drinkable water, breathable air, beauty in nature, a livable planet? I just don’t get it.”

    I’m an ACC agnostic. There is little that offends me more than being lied to. Once I discovered vanishing stations, missing raw data, etc, I felt that politics and greed had essentially ruined science. It made me mistrustful, and that’s a shame. I just withhold an opinion on whether climate change is anthropogenic because I’ve been burned. It may or may not be anthropogenic.

    What especially frustrates me is that we divert most of our energy and resources into ACC. We hyper focus on carbon while ignoring clear and present dangers like mercury contamination of ground water, air pollution, and especially de-vegetation.

    Mankind can definitely alter microclimates, and even vast geographic areas. Lebanon used to be famed for cedar forests until we chopped them all down to make ship masts. Now its desert. Goat grazing also desertified vast areas of the ME. Chopping down fire wood changed ecology – those forests were vital to maintaining moisture levels, soil retention, and preventing runoff. CA also has seen a change in ecology. There is almost zero runoff from natural chaparral slopes. When I read that I went out in a rainstorm and stood beneath one of our hills I kept natural. No runoff, and I stood at the bottom. Meanwhile, the dirt road next to us caused sheet flooding, gouging out trenches. We remove native chaparral that holds onto rain like a miser does his last gold coin. And we replace it with hardscape, alien grasses, or we just weed back the whole thing for weed abatement during fire season and denude it. More water pours off as runoff than it ever did before European colonization. There has been all this furor over saving the Delta smelt. I have to wonder if the Delta smelt existed there historically. We dumped millions of gallons of fresh water, as precious as diamonds, into the Delta to try to save this fish, but did we ever ascertain if it existed there because of unnatural runoff in the first place? Is the smelt a keystone species, like krill – whose absence would cause the collapse of entire food chains? Or was the little smelt an opportunist that took advantage of mankind altering the ecology? I actually do not know. It’s a moot point, however, as the latest survey found something like 7 smelt. We pollute groundwater with mercury and other contaminants. We remove the vegetation that would remove carbon, clean and moisturize the air, and produce oxygen.

    We do all of these things that could be improved. We could see immediate benefit if we invested in changes now. But Anthropogenic Climate Change has all the sex appeal. Politicians get to mock critics. Grants flow like water. We use it as a basis to impose taxes, fines, and fees. All that torrent of money flows to ACC, and we bypass other worthy causes that could improve our health today.

    Whether ACC is true or not, the health of our planet and all the creatures that live on it would improve if we cleaned up our mercury contamination and other pollutants, increased native plant landscaping, decreased the use of pesticide and herbicide, and improved urban planning. We could increase our water resources in drought states like CA by helping replenish underground aquifers through curtailing runoff.

    That is my issue. ACC uses up the lion’s share of our time, energy, and resources, which could benefit many worthy environmental or conservation issues. It is not balanced.

    What is also important is to accept that, regardless of the anthropogenic possibility, climate change is the normal state of affairs on our planet. Look at ancient coastlines far up the shore. That was normal, and Global Cooling was the catastrophe of those times. I assume that the Earth will either get cooler or warmer. We must adapt or perish. Because the Earth will go on without us.

  57. Isaac:

    Believe me, I look forward to the day that we no longer need fossil fuels. By definition, they are finite. They fund terrorist countries. They are relatively dirty. They pollute.

    Most people agree with this.

    Here is where the problem lies – we must be ready to replace such fuels with clean, green, renewables that are also cost effective. It does no one any good if it costs so much to heat your house in winter that you go chop down trees. Sadly, wood burning stoves and furnaces are becoming more popular now. Ads claim you can cut your energy costs. It’s already happening. Edison just announced that it would be increasing rates yet again because it is increasing its green energy portfolio.

    It is a net negative if people burn more wood to heat their homes.

    People focus on how wonderful it will be when we no longer use fossil fuels, and forget about the logistics. There is the feeling of why aren’t we just doing this right now? What’s the hold up?

    The hold up is:
    1) Right now alternative energy is far more expensive than fossil fuels. We need to bring that cost down without subsidies. The energy is costly both for individual home producers as well as energy grid. I looked at a house that had wind turbines (annoying!!!) and the cost for basic maintenance and repair were outrageous.
    2) Beta technology. Right now wind farms chop the air (it is SO ANNOYING. I’ve been around private wind turbines and farms, and I cannot stand that chopping sound and feeling on our ear drums. Awful. My horse hates it too.) That chases away wildlife. It also chops up birds at a truly alarming rate. The white color attracts insects at night, which attracts bats, who get blended. Unbelievably, here in CA, they approve wind farms in migratory waterfowl corridors, and in endangered CA Condor habitat. They need to have Dyson re-design them so they are quiet and harmless to birds and bats. Solar Power farms also literally fry wildlife and require re-design. Solar cells are made in China and produce quite a few toxic pollutants (like my nemesis mercury) in its production. We feel superior for being cleaner than China, installing our solar panels, but we contribute to her pollution.
    3) Infrastructure. We do not presently have the infrastructure to meet all of our energy needs. The country would go dark if we shut off fossil fuels right this exact second. So we’re not quite there yet.
    4) The grid. Right now, it is required by law in CA that a house must be on-grid. So we have to pay to run electrical wires to every home even if you can prove that it’s self sustaining all 4 seasons. That grid requires its money for profits and infrastructure. So as more Californians install solar panels, utility companies raise rates so they keep their profit margin. I think the grid needs to be re-thought on how it’s laid out. Perhaps most individual homes will become their own power generators in the future. My own personal dream is for my home to be capable of producing all of its own energy.

    I absolutely support grants for researching clean energy. And there have been some impressive breakthroughs. Surprisingly, nuclear energy that consumes its own waste is looking like a possibility again, and I wouldn’t have touched that tech with a 100 mile foot pole before.

    What I do not support is the government playing venture capitalist, because it is terrible at playing private sector. I do not support settling for beta technology. I want the best and I want it to last. I want energy to be affordable. I don’t want people paying $1,000/month for heating and air conditioning, or settling for Third World Conditions because they can’t afford energy costs. I’m tired of hearing about old people perishing because they couldn’t afford to heat or cool their homes. We must keep costs down, no matter how unwelcome such a goal is to politicians.

    These are exciting times, but we have to plan carefully. We can’t get carried away and settle for beta test models. We have to get this right, because a mistake is very costly.

  58. The issues with the drinking water of Flint, MI brings to mind the axiom that you cannot trust the government to always have your best interests at heart. It’s run by fallible people, made unaccountable through government unions. They are essentially un-firable and not accountable.

    Some maniac decided that the most polluted river in Flint would be a super source for drinking water. And then the local government ignored reports of rashes, Legionnaire’s Disease, Meningitis, and Lead for 2 years. The kids who had elevated blood concentrations of lead may have repercussions forever, with lower IQ and behavioral problems. Some people died from Legionnaire’s Disease. God knows whatever other diseases may have been contracted from this cesspool flowing from the tap. Why not bathe in medical waste combined with used motor oil? Now you have a mostly African American, poor community forced to bathe with bottled water while the government flounders around. Pregnant women and babies consumed this sewage.

    People should go to jail for this, like they should have for the VA scandal. But they won’t. Elected officials can get voted out of office. But the government union employees who made these shady deals, will continue to keep their jobs, and get fat raises and benefits. Sure, they will be sued, but the taxpayers will foot the bill.

    Even the EPA ignored its own whistleblower on this obvious catastrophe waiting to happen, which underlines the need to reform that department, as well.

    If this was a private company, it would be sued to the Stone Age, the office furniture taken out and sold, its officers would go to jail, and the company would fold. But since its the government, there is no accountability.

    I’m jaded, but I don’t think anyone will be prosecuted, even though they should be.

    And this entire story is apropos because it fits into my top priority of the critical need for clean water resources.

  59. In the 70’s it was global cooling. By now Washington and Oregon would be covered with ice. I have friends in Oregon, all is well. The planet cannot be controlled by mankind. To be benevolent, we named it Mother Nature. We have been recycling since the 70’s, not as much as today, but our office, of the evil corporation IBM, placed two waste baskets at everyone’s desk. One for paper and one for everything else. Our recyclable trash collection is on Tuesday. Drive around, everyone has their bin of recyclables ready to go. Solar energy panels arrive almost daily. Many are installing phony grass. Lots of people drive tiny cars (if a truck hit them, they will be dead! What more can we do? Bury our poop? We have solar panels (for the house and the pool) with the attendant decrease in our bill. But now the rates are being raised because the electricity company isn’t making enough money. We put all recyclables in front on Tuesday. All bottles and cans are in that container, along with bits and pieces of other recyclables. My husband drives a car with the least possible damage to the environment. I drive a four-door, Buick Park Avenue Ultra. They have discontinued the Park, so it gets a lot of attention so it stays and runs as the Black Beauty it is. I have, and use, A/C, heated front seats, a sunroof, CD changer in the trunk, every bell and whistle available! Filling it up is rarely less than $30+.

    As everything in this country, it is all about money. We Americans are doing everything we can to keep our air clean, our streams and lakes pure. If someone would tell us what more we can do,,we’ll probably do it. And it will make no difference, because the rest of the world will never recycle as much as we do. So now our reward is to give the Feds more of our money! I have no trust that the extra money will ever be used for climate change, which has been going on for more years than we can count. So who gets our largess? Polluted countries that will change nothing.

    I’m sorry Professor, but my husband’s degree is Physics. And four years on a nuclear sub teaches you a lot about Nuclear Physics. He will laugh when I show him your article.

    What no one talks about, and it is cause for concern, is the whirlpool of trash in the Pacific. Lots of ships go see it, but no one can think of what to do. It increases every day. It is beyond humongous. Most of it is recyclable plastic, but we can’t get it out. Now there is a true catastrophy, but no speeches on the floors of Congress, no tears from Obama, nothing. This is here and now, not 150 years from now, simply now. A gigantic vacuum, a bomb, throw in global warming scientists? This could be good for the economy. We could sell tickets. But only on sailing ships (not much pollution) and they will take their trash home to their bin.

    We could get blasted by a meteor or weaponry some country doesn’t know how to use so just presses a button. And that whirlpool will probably survive, but not us. I am a Republican and will vote for Trump if he is the nominee. Not to worry, I live in CA and presedential election votes are meaningless, the Democrats will win. Probably the worst run State in the Union, but oh the weather.

  60. A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, shows that the amount of man-made heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997.

    Does the study quantify alternate sources of energy (eg geothermal, cosmic ray bombardment) that may be responsible for the ocean warming phenomena said to have been observed?

    Earth’s climate has never been static as far back as science can discern Earth’s climate has been highly dynamic and fluid changing from millisecond to millisecond never being the same. This is why the use of terms such as normal/average to describe Earth’s climate are misleading as there truly is no normal or average in relation to climate. It is only when we look at Earth’s climate through the perspective of human time (tens-hundreds of years) that it appears to be stable. When Earth’s climate is viewed in geological/astronomical (thousands-billions of years) time it is very easy to see natural variability at work.

    In the image below there is a graph charting temperature (C) from 160,000 years ago to present which clearly shows that from 160,000 years ago until about 10,000 years ago temperature changed many times in very short time spans and then from about 10,000 years ago to present time the temperature appears to be stable but rest assurred it will change again with or without humans.

    Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J. Jouzel et al., Nature vol. 329. pp. 403-408, 1987 and published in EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record

    Climate change on Earth is not a newly discovered phenomena (as some people attempt to portray) it has been occurring since the beginning of Earth time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s