50 votes

A startling rise in sea-surface temperatures suggests that we may not understand how fast the climate is changing

Posted by skybrian
Tags: climate change, global warming, temperatures, oceans, ecosystems, author.elizabeth kolbert, source.the new yorker, paywall
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-is-the-sea-so-hot

Link information

This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.

Title
Why Is the Sea So Hot?
Authors
The New Yorker
Published
Mar 15 2024
Word count
952 words

24 comments

  1. [22]
    patience_limited
    Link
    I don't know why there was such a broad assumption that climate change would be a predictable, linear process, other than the systematic attempts to deny or minimize the process altogether. We've...

    I don't know why there was such a broad assumption that climate change would be a predictable, linear process, other than the systematic attempts to deny or minimize the process altogether. We've known about multiple possible tipping points for a long time.

    19 votes
    1. [7]
      skybrian
      Link Parent
      I don't know why you're assuming bad faith. Even though predicting climate change is difficult, climatologists still try to do the best they can. What do you think they should do instead?

      I don't know why you're assuming bad faith. Even though predicting climate change is difficult, climatologists still try to do the best they can. What do you think they should do instead?

      4 votes
      1. kingofsnake
        Link Parent
        Yup - the bad faith value judgement needs to be removed from the equation. Not to dig at OP, but when we look back at the 2010s, I think that on the whole we'll be shocked at how much we laid any...

        Yup - the bad faith value judgement needs to be removed from the equation.

        Not to dig at OP, but when we look back at the 2010s, I think that on the whole we'll be shocked at how much we laid any and all issues at the feet of a malicious cabal of straw men.

        Sometimes there are more random, less nefarious reasons for why things (actually, everything) happens

        3 votes
      2. [5]
        patience_limited
        Link Parent
        You may want to read this and this for evidence that optimistic bias and bad faith may be at work. Those were just the quickest examples I could get my hands on. I'll admit there's been...

        You may want to read this and this for evidence that optimistic bias and bad faith may be at work. Those were just the quickest examples I could get my hands on.

        I'll admit there's been information lag in disseminating results of the best predictive models, which have changed over the last 25 years, but there's also the noted hesitancy in broadcasting the likelihood of catastrophic scenarios in the very short term.

        1 vote
        1. [4]
          skybrian
          Link Parent
          The first link is an advocacy piece by someone I don't know, though it seems he has a Wikipedia page. The underlined words are not links. The article lacks references for understanding his sources...

          The first link is an advocacy piece by someone I don't know, though it seems he has a Wikipedia page. The underlined words are not links. The article lacks references for understanding his sources of information. So I don't see it as evidence of anything. There are lots of opinion pieces about climate, so what's so great about this one?

          The second link seems to be about YouTube. I don't get my climate news from YouTube and I doubt climatologists do either, so it doesn't seem all that relevant?

          1 vote
          1. [3]
            patience_limited
            Link Parent
            I'm not an academic, and my access to primary sources behind paywalls is limited. I've been following what I could reach of James Hansen's work as a matter of curiosity. He's been warning of...

            I'm not an academic, and my access to primary sources behind paywalls is limited. I've been following what I could reach of James Hansen's work as a matter of curiosity. He's been warning of non-linear impacts [PDF warning] from linear atmospheric CO2 accumulation for over a decade.

            1. [2]
              skybrian
              Link Parent
              If this is just about "might there be non-linear effects," I don't think anyone would say no. I'm not a climatologist but talk about tipping points isn't new and there multiple ways it might...

              If this is just about "might there be non-linear effects," I don't think anyone would say no. I'm not a climatologist but talk about tipping points isn't new and there multiple ways it might happen.

              But it's quite another thing to make specific claims that some specific non-linear effect is happening in a particular place, and to try to predict the result.

              But then again, your wording was pretty vague. I interpreted it as saying that the climatologists interviewed in the article were doing something wrong, but maybe you didn't mean it that way?

              1. patience_limited
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                I simply commented offhandedly about the implicit assumption in this article, and most other popular press coverage, that climate change effects would proceed at the same pace as CO2...

                I simply commented offhandedly about the implicit assumption in this article, and most other popular press coverage, that climate change effects would proceed at the same pace as CO2 concentration. I didn't intend to criticize the climatologists' statements in the original article at all. It's a New Yorker article, not an IPCC announcement. There's no mention of methane, black carbon, or fluorocarbons, as among the additional potential accelerants, but it does make the claim about declining sulfate aerosols as a contributor to current warming.

                1 vote
    2. [13]
      updawg
      Link Parent
      One problem that we don't seem to have accounted for very much is the fact that burning coal also emits sulfates which reflect the Sun's light, cooling down the atmosphere. So some of the CO2 that...

      One problem that we don't seem to have accounted for very much is the fact that burning coal also emits sulfates which reflect the Sun's light, cooling down the atmosphere. So some of the CO2 that we were accounting for is coming from a source that is also cooling down the planet, meaning that our models are not necessarily all accounting for as much of the warming that CO2 is causing as they should have been.

      3 votes
      1. [12]
        patience_limited
        Link Parent
        I'm not a geoscientist, just someone who paid attention in chemistry... Even though models show SO2 aerosols may have a significant negative temperature impact, I'm more concerned that methane...

        I'm not a geoscientist, just someone who paid attention in chemistry...

        Even though models show SO2 aerosols may have a significant negative temperature impact, I'm more concerned that methane emissions haven't been properly accounted for. It's not just unrestricted methane off-gassing from oil and natural gas production, but thawing permafrost and oceanic methane clathrate decomposition. The latest IPCC report may have underestimated the risks from rapid Arctic warming.

        10 votes
        1. [7]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [2]
            scroll_lock
            Link Parent
            Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that between 2017 and 2020, agriculture accounted for 145 Mt of methane...
            Comment box
            • Scope: information
            • Tone: neutral
            • Opinion: none
            • Sarcasm/humor: none

            The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that between 2017 and 2020, agriculture accounted for 145 Mt of methane emissions globally. That is more than all methane emissions from the entire energy sector.

            The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that "enteric fermentation" (cow stuff) plus "manure management" collectively contributed to 33% of anthropogenic (I think) methane emissions between 1990 and 2021 in the US. Land use contributed another 3%, but that includes non-agricultural uses too.

            The World Bank claims that 81.4% of Brazil's methane emissions are from agriculture as of 2008. A study from 2023 found that agriculture made up 74% of all emissions in the country overall (not just methane, but just for context). So that is all to say, cattle are a big problem as far as methane emissions go.

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. scroll_lock
                Link Parent
                Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: a bit Sarcasm/humor: none I've largely stopped eating beef and pork for this reason, and reduced poultry and fish intake as well. Brazil is a...
                Comment box
                • Scope: information
                • Tone: neutral
                • Opinion: a bit
                • Sarcasm/humor: none

                I've largely stopped eating beef and pork for this reason, and reduced poultry and fish intake as well.

                Brazil is a sovereign state and makes its own decisions about land use. But you will be pleased to hear that the recently elected president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva specifically intends to reverse the deforestation that his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, had encouraged for years.

                The goal is apparently "no deforestation" by 2030. This probably means logging will be allowed in some capacity, but either less logging in old growth areas, less clear-cutting, or less industry overall.

                Some of the Amazon rainforest lies outside of Brazil's borders, so it's also up to other South American countries to step up. I think that wealthy Western countries could do more to help diversify the economies of the global south to make them less reliant on ecologically destructive industry, but it's complicated.

                1 vote
          2. [4]
            kingofsnake
            Link Parent
            It's sizable - the burping and farting of cows is actually quite a large contributor to methane emissions and the sort of thing that we'd do well to limit.

            It's sizable - the burping and farting of cows is actually quite a large contributor to methane emissions and the sort of thing that we'd do well to limit.

            1 vote
            1. [3]
              first-must-burn
              Link Parent
              I know you meant this seriously, but I spent longer than I care to admit thinking about prim nanny types standing in fields shaming cows for their emissions. Is there more to it than just reducing...

              I know you meant this seriously, but I spent longer than I care to admit thinking about prim nanny types standing in fields shaming cows for their emissions.

              Is there more to it than just reducing livestock herd sizes? Maybe dietary changes? Now I am imagining genetically modified gut bacteria fixing methane in cow stomachs.

              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. scroll_lock
                  Link Parent
                  Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Vijn et al. write in "Key Considerations for the Use of Seaweed to Reduce Enteric Methane Emissions From Cattle"...
                  Comment box
                  • Scope: information
                  • Tone: neutral
                  • Opinion: none
                  • Sarcasm/humor: none

                  Vijn et al. write in "Key Considerations for the Use of Seaweed to Reduce Enteric Methane Emissions From Cattle" (2020):

                  Feed additives, such as the inhibitor 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), have been shown to consistently decrease enteric methane emissions by up to 30% in both dairy and beef cattle (7, 8). However, their use in ruminant diets is currently not widespread due to the need for regulatory approval, the lack of incentives such as carbon credits or gains in animal productivity, and the absence of legislative mandates for agricultural GHG reduction in most regions.

                  Feeding livestock many seaweeds—also known as red, green or brown marine macroalgae—has been shown to reduce methane production, but with highly variable results (9–12). For example, in vitro analysis suggested that the tropical/subtropical red seaweed Asparagopsis taxiformis can reduce methane production by 95% when added to feed at a 5% organic matter inclusion rate (13). An in vivo study in dairy cows using A. armata, a closely related species, showed that methane production and yield (adjusted for feed consumption) decreased 67 and 43%, respectively, at a 1% level of dry matter inclusion in the diet (13). Kinley et al. (14) reported that inclusion of A. taxiformis at 0.10 and 0.20% of dietary dry matter over a 90 day period decreased methane production in steers up to 40 and 98%, and produced weight gain improvements of 24 and 17 kg, respectively, relative to control steers.

                  The article talks about various other problems that stop cattle farmers from feeding tons of seaweed to their livestock, such as potential toxicity to some animals in high volumes, depending on the kind of seaweed or alternative. There are also not enough seaweed farms in the world to feed all cattle this diet.

                  1 vote
              2. kingofsnake
                Link Parent
                Lol, I bet that the cows would appreciate the nannies over a gas collecting, centrally connected carbon capture unit. Gas masks and metal diapers for all the cows at this Goth themed night club ;)

                Lol, I bet that the cows would appreciate the nannies over a gas collecting, centrally connected carbon capture unit. Gas masks and metal diapers for all the cows at this Goth themed night club ;)

                1 vote
        2. [5]
          kingofsnake
          Link Parent
          It's the thawing permafrost in the arctic taiga and tundra and that should have us most worried. My geoscience pals say that the release of dangerous diseases that have been frozen in the ground...

          It's the thawing permafrost in the arctic taiga and tundra and that should have us most worried.

          My geoscience pals say that the release of dangerous diseases that have been frozen in the ground for Millenia isn't as big a deal as some thought it might be, but that the freeze/thaw of landscapes that we're previously inert is where we could see exponential issues.

          1 vote
          1. [4]
            scroll_lock
            Link Parent
            Comment box Scope: question Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none What are the specific exponential dangers of freeze/thaw cycles occurring in places that were previously permafrost,...
            Comment box
            • Scope: question
            • Tone: neutral
            • Opinion: none
            • Sarcasm/humor: none

            What are the specific exponential dangers of freeze/thaw cycles occurring in places that were previously permafrost, beyond habitat destruction of some local species? I see how that is bad, but I am curious how it contributes to the overall state of the climate in an outsized way.

            My only guess is more flood risk and maybe something about salination levels of lakes/rivers, but if inland water bodies are fresh anyway I don't think I understand the problem on a global scale.

            1. kingofsnake
              Link Parent
              I'm the last person worth listening to about this but I think it has something to do with the decomposition of large amounts of bio matter land that was previously under ice. Methane produced as a...

              I'm the last person worth listening to about this but I think it has something to do with the decomposition of large amounts of bio matter land that was previously under ice. Methane produced as a byproduct and on the scale of the entire arctic, that's an issue.

              The other issue being the cascade effect of low reflectivity surfaces inviting and absorbing more sunlight, and therefore speeding up the process of arctic thaw.

              3 votes
            2. kacey
              Link Parent
              (here’s a relevant article, in case it helps. tl;dr is microbes can decompose stuff again when it thaws)

              (here’s a relevant article, in case it helps. tl;dr is microbes can decompose stuff again when it thaws)

              2 votes
    3. kingofsnake
      Link Parent
      We've simplified it in public life because for most, the non-technical 'lay-brain' can't process something that takes more than two sentences to explain. It's a problem created by sound bite...

      We've simplified it in public life because for most, the non-technical 'lay-brain' can't process something that takes more than two sentences to explain.

      It's a problem created by sound bite communications.

      3 votes
  2. skybrian
    Link
    From the article: … … … …

    From the article:

    In early 2023, climate scientists—and anyone else paying attention to the data—started to notice something strange. At the beginning of March, sea-surface temperatures began to rise. By April, they’d set a new record: the average temperature at the surface of the world’s oceans, excluding those at the poles, was just a shade under seventy degrees.

    …

    Since the start of 2024, sea-surface temperatures have continued to climb; in February, they set yet another record. In a warming world, ocean temperatures are expected to rise and keep on rising. But, for the last twelve months, the seas have been so feverish that scientists are starting to worry about not just the physical impacts of all that heat but the theoretical implications. Can the past year be explained by what’s already known about climate change, or are there forces at work that haven’t been accounted for?

    …

    “It’s not like we’re breaking records by a little bit now and then,” Brian McNoldy, a hurricane researcher at the University of Miami, said. “It’s like the whole climate just fast-forwarded by fifty or a hundred years. That’s how strange this looks.” It’s estimated that in 2023 the heat content in the upper two thousand metres of the oceans increased by at least nine zettajoules. For comparison’s sake, the world’s annual energy consumption amounts to about 0.6 zettajoules.

    A variety of circumstances and events have been cited as possible contributors to the past year’s anomalous warmth. One is the January, 2022, eruption of an underwater volcano in the South Pacific called Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai. Usually, volcanoes emit sulfur dioxide, which produces a temporary cooling effect, and water vapor, which does the opposite. Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai produced relatively little sulfur dioxide but a fantastic amount of water vapor, and its warming effects, it’s believed, are still being felt.

    …

    Another factor is the current solar cycle, known as Solar Cycle 25. Solar activity is ramping up—it’s expected to peak this year or next—and this, too, may be producing an extra bit of warming.

    Yet another is a change in the composition of shipping fuel. Regulations that went into effect in 2020 reduced the amount of sulfur in the fuel used by supertankers. This reduction, in turn, has led to a decline in a type of air pollution that, through direct and indirect effects, reflects sunlight back to space. It’s thought that this change has led to an increase in the amount of energy being absorbed by the seas, though quantifying the effect is difficult.

    Can all of these factors together account for what’s going on? Climate scientists say it’s possible. There’s also a lot of noise in the climate system. “This could end up just being natural variability,” Susan Wijffels, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said.

    …

    “I think the real test will be what happens in the next twelve months,” Wijffels said. “If temperatures remain very high, then I would say more people in the community will be really alarmed and say ‘O.K., this is outside of what we can explain.’ ”

    9 votes