Oceans Are Getting Hotter and Ice Sheets Are Melting Faster, Says New Report

Sea level rise is accelerating and marine heatwaves are becoming more common


The oceans are warming, becoming more acidic, and rising faster as a result of man-made climate change, according to a new special report, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). The report is a compilation of the latest research by climate scientists assembled under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its authors write that the extent of Arctic sea ice is steadily declining, mountain glaciers are melting, the area of snow cover on land is decreasing, and permafrost is warming.

As these trends advance, low-lying coastal areas will experience increased flooding, marine life will shift further polewards, coral bleaching events will become more common, weather patterns may shift in response to more open warmer water in the Arctic Ocean, and melting permafrost may exacerbate warming by gushing trapped carbon into the atmosphere.

Some of the topline findings in the SROCC are that "it is virtually certain that the global ocean has warmed unabated since 1970 and has taken up more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system." In addition, it is likely that the rate of ocean warming has more than doubled since 1993. Researchers have very high confidence that marine heatwaves—defined as when the daily sea surface temperature exceeds the local 99th percentile over the period 1982 to 2016—have very likely doubled in frequency since 1982 and are increasing in intensity. It is virtually certain that by absorbing more carbon dioxide, the ocean has undergone increasing surface acidification.

Total global mean sea level rose by about 0.16 meters between 1902 and 2015 (a little over 6 inches). The rate of average sea level rise between 2006 and 2015 was about 3.6 millimeters per year, which is about 2.5 times the 1901–1990 rate of 1.4 millimeters per year. The rise in sea level is accelerating as water from melting ice sheets and mountain glaciers run into the oceans, and thermal expansion, as the oceans warm up.

In trying to see into the future, the SROCC chiefly focuses on two scenarios: one in which efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions keep future global average warming to around 1.6 degrees Celsius by 2100, and another scenario in which no efforts to limit emissions results in an increase of 4.3 degrees Celsius by that same year.

Global mean sea level rise in the lower temperature 2100 scenario is projected to be about 0.43 meter (17 inches), with respect to 1986–2005. For the higher temperature scenario, the corresponding sea level rise is projected to be around 0.84 meter (33 inches) in 2100.

The rate of global mean sea level rise is projected to reach 15 millimeters per year by 2100 in the high temperature scenario, and to exceed several centimeters per year in the 22nd century. In the low temperature scenario, the rate is projected to reach 4 millimeters per year in 2100. While the researchers express low confidence in computer model projections for 2300, they note that sea level rise in the high temperature scenario could be as much as 2.3–5.4 meters (7 to 17 feet) and  0.6–1.07 meters (2 to 3.5 feet) in the low temperature scenario.

Interestingly, during the last interglacial period between 127,000 to 106,000 years ago, temperatures were between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius warmer than now and sea level was 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher. Researchers believe that the higher sea level of that time period occurred as a result of ice sheet melting in Greenland and Antarctica.

These trends certainly pose challenges to humanity. But there is good evidence that ingenuity and increasing wealth from economic growth can meet these challenges. Let's take sea level rise. As I noted in an earlier article:

Using a worst-case climate scenario in which no efforts were made to reduce future warming, a 2018 study in Earth's Future projected that sea level would rise by 2 and half feet by 2100. The researchers estimated that that increase would globally expand the area of land located in the 1-in-100 year coastal flood plain from its current area of about 210,000 square miles, to 290,000 square miles in 2100. The percent of the global population threatened by coastal flooding would rise (in the worst case scenario) from 3.6 percent now to about 5.4 percent by 2100.

A 2018 study in Global Environmental Change, this one also evaluating the economic effects of projected sea level increases ranging from 1 to 6 feet by 2100, concluded that it would be cost effective to invest in the protection of just 13 percent of the global coastline, thus safeguarding 90 percent the population and 96 percent of assets located in the global coastal floodplain. If these projections are approximately correct, addressing sea level rise will be costly, but it does not portend near-term societal collapse.

Setting aside big unexpected surprises, human ingenuity and increased wealth created by economic growth will similarly be able to adapt to the coming changes in the oceans and the cryosphere stemming from future climate change.

NEXT: Here Is Why the Massachusetts Ban on Vaping Products Is Bad for Public Health

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If a democratic politician came along and ran on a platform of nuking India and China I’d think he was nuts and wouldn’t vote for him. However, he’d be the first guy to suggest an economically feasible plan that solves a problem.
    He could use that 16 year-old autistic girl in his advertisements.

  2. “Oceans Are Getting Hotter and Ice Sheets Are Melting Faster, Says New Report.”

    Yeah, that’s what happens at the end of the summer solace.
    What other stupid shit news do you have for us today?

    1. So you don’t understand what seasons are, think “solstice” is called “solace,” and don’t understand that either?

    2. “the summer solace”

      Get an education, clinger. Start with standard English.

      Or just hurry up and be replaced.

      1. Few things make me chuckle like when you talk of people being “replaced”.

        1. Which is worse? Being replaced or being canceled? Arty is so eager to ingratiate himself into the woke youth.

          1. He doesn’t understand that the Millennials hate Boomers and he’ll be put up against the wall right next to the clingers he tries so hard to pretend he’s not.

            1. Just like a Menshevick. They never learn, that what you empower a government to do unto others will, inevitably, be done unto you.

          2. Arty doesn’t understand that after his revolution, proponents like him are the first to earn a kiss from Mademoiselle Guillotine to the cheers of his comrades.

      2. Fuck off, slaver.

      3. C’mon Artie the Rev… you KNEW what he meant.

        Nice pwetty wed widdow teensie weensie fishie swimming by, eh?

    3. What? I assume you mean “solstice”. But the summer solstice is a moment in time that marks the beginning of Summer. And the beginning of decreasing solar radiation to the Northern Hemisphere.

      There may well be good reasons to criticize or doubt the report, but the fact that it’s summer isn’t one of them. Are you a paid plant from the left to make climate skeptics look stupid, or what?

  3. In the category of “we don’t know what we don’t know”, we don’t know how this will shake out. Off the top of my head, increased ocean temperatures engenders more more sea flora, increasing the earth’s ability to deal with carbon emissions.

    The earth is a very stable system, we can expect damping effects.

    By the way, this is all a call back to when researchers figured out that the ‘great pause’ was a result of increased global temperatures ‘hiding’ under the sea. A potential place for energy to ‘hide’ may be into new plants themselves.

    Alarmists are fond of pointing out that we are getting more energy in, but less energy out, but they have no idea how the excess energy interacts with the mindbogglingly large and complex energy systems on earth.

    1. JC: With respect to stability consider that it took a temperature increase between about 3 to 5 degrees C to end the last ice age when 30% of the Earth’s land was covered with ice (now 10%) and sea level was several hundred feet lower.

      1. At the peril of reading your mind, and to mix metaphors, I think what you’re saying is that even though air might dampen our velocity as our speed is increasing, we have the pedal to the metal, is that accurate?

        My point is that the temperature increase prediction of ~3 deg C is based on a model that doesn’t take into account unforeseen mitigating effects.

        Consider other endothermic reactions. If you put a bowl of water in an environment of -10 deg C, you can track the rate at which the water cools down, but once it gets to 0 deg, the cooling stops until the water turns to ice, then it continues to decrease. The ocean is an unfathomable (pun intended) energy sink. We have no idea what effects that will have.

        Aside from the obvious power grab, the thing that bothers me most about the climate debate is that you are called a denier if you say, “the system is complex and you can’t accurate predict it” but then when unpredictable things happen (like the great pause), climate scientists unabashedly come up with a theory as to what happened, plug it into the model, then chug along as if the point which was just proven never happened, because now they have identified that one new specific thing. (Which, by the way, is modern atheism in a nutshell, “because we can explain how these certain things work, there is no God.”)

        1. Crap, sorry, mixed up exotherm/endotherm. Same example, but with water heating, increase stops until converted into steam. I think you get the idea.

          That is with something as simple as a single element changing phases, not a system as complex and large as the earth.

          1. Also, water is not an element, unless you are in BC Greece or the last air bender.

            1. Anybody have a rope so I can either climb out of this hole, or hang myself?

              1. I think you did fine. Everyone knows global warming is the endgame of the Fire Nation. 🙂

            2. Clearly, you are no fan of Earth, Wind, and Fire

        2. There’s also the question of how 400 PPM CO2 is a world-ending scenario when it’s been at least as high as 1500 PPM. Not to mention wouldn’t we expect the planet to warm as it exits an ice age?

          1. Oh, I would also mention that most of Earth’s surface is ocean in direct sunlight. Last I heard the biggest driver of heat in the ocean was extra-terrestrial in origin.

            Also, last time I checked that H20 that’s literally everywhere is itself a greenhouse gas and is orders of magnitude greater than CO2. Where is common sense water regulation and H2O sequestration efforts?

            I guess it depends if you really believe it’ll be a runaway positive feedback cycle between H2O and CO2, but it seems pretty far fetched to me.

            1. Very dim, BYODB.
              Half of Earth’s surface is in the dark, a lot of the remainder is under cloud cover, and the fraction of the ocean in direct sunlight is dark as asphalt- it only reflects 7% of the heat sun.

        3. Not so about ‘God.’ The burden of proof would be to demonstrate that a god existed. None will be forthcoming.

          1. Yeah, the point is that God isn’t necessary to explain the world. Which may be more of an agnostic view than atheist. But I don’t think there is a very meaningful distinction, unless you are one of the obnoxious atheists who just hate religion.

            Maybe that’s wrong. Depends on what you consider the true nature of existence. But it’s a perfectly valid way of looking at the world.

        4. “We have no idea what effects that will have.”

          You’ll never make a scientist at this rate. Falsifiable hypotheses, that’s the essence of science. You made one yourself when you predicted warmer oceans lead to increased plant life. All that remains is to get your feet wet and start measuring.

  4. Help me, Bernie Sanders, you’re my only hope.

    1. Clingers have no hope.

      No realistic hope.

      They will lose the culture war, comply with the preferences of their betters, then be replaced.

      1. It’ll be amusing as hell to watch you whine and kvetch after Trump gets re-elected, and I’m not even voting for the old fool.

    2. I hope you’re joking. Fixing the problem will take a lot more than giving everyone a job in government and saying that fossil fuel emissions are bad.

      1. I have a job with the government and I’ve been saying that for years. It works so well I no longer need to put food in the freezer. The same sno-cone has been on my counter for years now. It’s dusty.

  5. “The oceans are getting hotter and ice sheets and glacier are melting faster due to climate change”

    The political system is getting more corrupt and our constitution is burning faster due to Donald Trump

    Reason is good at these articles. if they can be believed.

    1. h: You can believe them.

    2. Reason Magazine: “Libertarians” for Socialist Narratives

      1. You know, it is possible that reality might occasionally be inconvenient for your ideology.
        I think people are far too certain about climate predictions. I don’t think we know how it works very well at all. But being dead certain that it is all BS made up by socialists is at least as dumb a position to take. That’s a great reason to criticize proposed policy responses, but not a good challenge to the scientific end of things.

        1. But being dead certain that it is all BS made up by socialists is at least as dumb a position to take.

          People are dead certain that it’s all BS made up by socialists because

          A) Every single policy proposal implements socialism–whether the problem is warming or cooling.

          B) Everyone making those proposals is doing absolutely nothing to mitigate any warming/cooling.

          C) There is no ‘scientific’ side of things. Anyone who attempts serious scientific investigation is immediately unpersoned.

          1. All that A and B demonstrate is that socialists are opportunists who will use any purported crisis to advance their agenda.
            As far as C goes, I agree that there is a troubling bias towards one type of result in climate science, but I don’t think that it’s true that no one is being allowed to do serious investigation of the subject.

            1. You don’t?

              Who made the issue into a crisis in the first place? Socialists. Or let me be more inclusive and condemnatory–leftists. Leftists made this into a problem that only Socialism can fix.

              They created the issue and proposed themselves as the solution.

              If that’s not ‘socialist BS’, I’m having a gard time seeing what is.

              And what’s happened when people like Judith Curry have dared to question the orthodoxy? Who does she write for now? Is she still awash in that sweet, sweet AGW lucre?

        2. We’re dead certain it’s BS made up by socialists because it’s been conclusively shown that the error bars on their “runaway” temperature predictions are many times the predicted increase, and thus completely fucking worthless:


  6. So Bailey is still buying into the AGW scam. No surprise there…

    1. Do you really think it’s a scam? It’s overblown, and largely unstoppable, but it’s happening. The totalitarian moralizes on the left are disgusting, but our best science suggests AGW is the real deal.

      1. And even if the “A” part of AGW is less significant than people claim, GW is still something people have to deal with.

  7. Mr. Bailey:
    What voluntary, non-coercive, non-governmental actions should libertarians be recommending people to take in order to mitigate the potential effects of climate change?

    1. Stop having all your meals delivered by GrubHub, and quit ordering stuff to be delivered by Amazon, UPS, etc. most every day, and then returning half of it.

      1. Ordering on Amazon is a lot more efficient than going to the mall.

        1. Not really. A truck, that is less efficient than most cars, still has to trek from the fulfillment center to your house. Maybe more efficient for you, personally, but still plenty of energy used.

          1. The truck doesn’t bring you your one thing and then turn around and return to the distribution center and pick up another thing and then deliver that to someone else. It loads up stuff all destined for one area and then delivers all of it in one trip.

            So, yes, more efficient.

      2. That definitely won’t get it done.

    2. There are none.

    3. Stop pretending you’re a libertarian. It’s just embarrassing at this point. These one off comments in random threads dont undo the thousands in orange man bad articles and links to huffpost, fox, and ratical.org.

      1. Why does it bother you so much? It’s not like you’re any sort of libertarian. You’re a typical right-wing Republican.

        Sure I’ll occasionally post links from HuffPo and Vox. I’ll also occasionally post links from Cato, AEI, NPR, CNN, lots of places. So what. Is that a crime?

        Ratical.org has a very useful definition of fascism. It’s worth keeping in mind considering the upcoming election.


        Do you think libertarians have some sort of obligation to give Trump the benefit of the doubt? Libertarians tend to have a strong anti-authoritarian streak in them. And guess which authoritarian is currently in charge. I have to wonder about libertarians who think Trump is “their man”. So yes, orange man is bad in plenty of ways. If anything, you should be asking people like damikesc why they post here, people who can’t find anything wrong with Trump even if they try. What is the point of coming here and just being a Trump mouthpiece? Maybe you should ask yourself that.

        1. Haha!

          Number 8 of your ‘definition’ of fascism precisely applies to the AGW fiasco:

          Religion and Government are Intertwined
          Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

        2. Holy crap.

          No wonder you fuckers seem so stupid.

          That’s not fascism. Not at all.

          It’s a list of things leftists practice but claim to hate.

          The fasces aren’t even mentioned

      2. What has chemjeff ever posted that would make you think he isn’t a libertarian? I really don’t get it.

        1. It’s common knowledge that libertarians agree with each other about everything. Chemjeff has disagreements with other posters here, therefore he can’t be a libertarian. QED, dude.

        2. Support for the state taking away private property rights
          Support for the state mandating speech and behavior norms
          Support for the state controlling business
          Support for international socialism

          Nearly everything he posts consists of a throwaway ‘I’m a libertarian’ trope combined with support for something so antithetical to liberty as to make his blurb laughably sad.

          1. I think your idea of what constitutes support is a bit skewed.

    4. Don’t build or buy near the coast. Refute climate alarmism as often as necessary, which is continuously. Use energy more efficiently – car pool, combine trips, keep the temperature comfortable but not excessive cooling/heating. – the same shit Jimmy Carter was telling us in 1976. All common sense for reducing COSTS, which is a very libertarian idea.

    5. Grow world GDP (rich countries warm the planet less than poor ones) and advance tech to find a better way to solve the problem in the future, if there is in fact a problem.

  8. This reminds me of a story I saw a few days ago about the awful, terrifying, horrible, very real effects of global warming. Seems the state of Florida has stopped writing checks for rebuilding hurricane damaged homes in the Florida Keys and told these people to move their ass out of low-lying hurricane-prone areas. Heartless bastards! They don’t even care about the victims here!

    Of course, John Stossel did a story like 30 years ago about how insane the federal flood insurance program is – when the private market won’t sell you insurance on your home, it’s a pretty good sign that they think maybe you shouldn’t be building a house right there. It seems the government is starting to catch on and mitigating the effects of sea-level rise aren’t quite as big a deal as all that.

    So you’ve been warned – over the next century or so, you should think about moving a couple of feet further up the hill. Me, I’m figuring I’ll be living about 6 feet lower sometime well before the end of the century so I don’t care.

    1. It’s like the DOOM crew thinks that nothing ever changes. Coastlines and river courses have always been changing. Cities have moved many times all over the world. People adapt. Shit changes. And people are in a better position to adapt to changes like that without major discomfort than they ever have been.

  9. So we have time and nobody can claim they were not warned. Hopefully solutions will be rational market based and libertarian vs the pseudo religious authoritarian teenagers wailing at the UN and the green new dealers.

    1. If you can’t turn a crisis into an opportunity for politicians to become the overlords of a command and control economy, why push the crisis?

    2. Have time? We have 11 years! And only 18 months before some effects become irreversible!!11

      1. I’m pretty sure someone said that 11 years ago too.

    3. I don’t think there will be any solutions other than technological change over time. The climate is going to change…bad things will happen…hopefully it won’t be as bad as the alarmists are saying.

      1. Yeah, this. It will be what it will be. I have no expectation that anything significant will be done. Big government attempts to “do something” will fail. Best case is that no big policies happen and we stop subsidizing people building and rebuilding in flood prone areas.

  10. In 1988 they told us the Maldives would be under water by now. (Google it). The Maldives are not, in fact, under water.

    All these stories keep telling us climate change is “faster”, yet none of the really noteworthy predictions ever seem to come true. The timetable gets pushed out 50-100 more years.

    Hmm. It’s almost like they exaggerate everything and have been for at least 30 years with zero self awareness.

    1. Well, there’s lots of water all around the Maldives, what do you have to say about that? It could strike at any moment

    2. That’s the trouble…it always seems to be an exaggeration. It’s tough to take climate nuts seriously. Especially, since there isn’t much to be done about it.

    3. Don’t ask me. I died during the mass starvations of the 70s.

    4. How about a link, since my Google doesn’t seem to be producing that fact.

      Of course, you morons thought in 1988 that tax cuts increased government revenues, but in your defense, that was probably just a lie.

      Current projections show the Maldives underwater by 2100. Let’s just wait and see to be sure, how about?

  11. Greta got to you, didn’t she?

    1. France, Germany, and others are turning on poor little Greta, now that she is suing them:

      President Macron and Angela Merkel, who had both previously endorsed Ms Thunberg’s Fridays for Future school strike movement, were stung into reacting to what one French minister termed her “despair . . . verging on hatred”.

      Scott Morrison, 51, the prime minister of Australia and a fossil fuels enthusiast, also accused her of stirring up “needless anxiety” among his country’s children.

      Ms Thunberg, 16, rose to global celebrity in the space of 12 months after a solitary protest outside parliament before last year’s general election in Sweden.

      Last Friday she mobilised an estimated four million demonstrators in more than 100 countries to join protests after sailing across the Atlantic to address a UN climate summit in New York.

      In an uncompromising speech she told the world’s politicians that they had “stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words”. She accused governments of betraying young people. “You are not mature enough to tell it like it is,” she said. “You are failing us.”

      She joined 15 other child protesters in filing a formal complaint to the UN that nations including Brazil, Germany, Turkey and France had violated international children’s rights by failing to take sufficiently bold measures to reduce carbon emissions. This step appears to have provoked some governments that might otherwise have counted themselves among her allies.

      Mr Macron, 41, who adopted Fridays for Future as the motto for the G7 summit he hosted in Biarritz last month and said that the movement had “fundamentally changed” him, abruptly turned on Ms Thunberg.

      “All the movements among our youth, or the less young, are useful,” he told Europe 1, a French broadcaster. “But now they must concentrate on the people who are further away [from their position], those who are trying to block them. These radical positions will naturally antagonise our societies.”

      Brune Poirson, the French ecology minister, questioned whether Ms Thunberg could succeed in “mobilising people with despair, with what is verging on hatred, setting people against one another”. […]

      Yesterday Boris Palmer, 47, a prominent figure in the German Green party and the mayor of the university city of Tübingen, said he was worried that her movement was becoming “radicalised” and urged her followers to ignore her call to “panic” about the climate.

      “If you’re panicking, you’re no longer in a position to deal with things thoughtfully, and therefore you don’t achieve your goals,” he told Die Welt.

      Hahahahahahaha. Screw that ignorant little bitch.

      1. She sound like the perfect figure to start a new Jonestown-like cult in the name of climate change

  12. AND LEON IS GETTING Laaaaaaarger

  13. Ron, If you went to the race track and some tout gave you the “winners” in 30 races and every one lost, would you be willing to bet on the 31st recommendation? Well, in 1998 the IPCC reported the results of 30 computer climate simulations for the next 20 years. Do you know what they all had in common? They all greatly overestimated the temperatures. Not single one came close, even with the enormous error bars.

    You were reading the Summary for Policy Makers, which typically comes out 4 to 6 months before the scientific papers are published. You might as well been listening to AOC.

    1. Ah…but the oceans are absorbing all of that energy…or whatever. Give everyone a government job…they guess???

    2. So… you don’t think the science has gotten any better in the last 20 years?

      1. It sure hasn’t gotten any more accurate.

  14. This is news? Not since 1969 – – – –
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    Wrong then, wrong now.
    If only he had been right, no NY and no DC *heavy sigh*

    1. Doubling CO2 raises temperatures by about one rankine.

    2. You people are all psychopaths.

  15. 1969?

    Pat was referencing the 1965 White House report that former next President Gore never got around to reading :


  16. “Summary for Policy Makers”. Nothing says unbiased, agendaless science than a document with that in it’s title.

  17. So, is this actually happening? Or is this what the IPCC says the *models say* is happening?

    1. Also, those two scenarios? They look a lot like the ‘not best case scenario’ coupled with the ‘worst case scenario’. Designed to make the summary look worse than the paper will show.

      Because in the past wasn’t the ‘baseline’ expecting around 1C warming and the ‘worst case’ at 2.5ish?

      As for sea ice declining – weren’t we, just a few years ago, at an abnormally large coverage area of sea ice? I seem to remember climate scientists running around looking for justification when not only was the Arctic ice not thinning but noticeably above average. It seems like we’re just reverting to mean here.

      1. “The minimum ice extent was effectively tied for second lowest in the satellite record, along with 2007 and 2016”


        The minimum extent was reached four days later than the 1981 to 2010 median minimum date of September 14.

      2. You might be thinking of the Antarctic…

    2. It’s actually happening. With the caveat that older data is sparse and unreliable and the usual “adjustments” to the record have been made and – if I understand the graph correctly – the first half of the “rising” sea levels were actually a slowing of their decline. It’s the same as the temperature charts that show the inexorable rise in global temperatures over the last thousand years – if you note where the zero line is, you’ll realize that much of the “rise” is actually a decline in the fall. If one century saw a temperature decline of 3 degrees and the next century saw a decline of 2 degrees, it doesn’t mean the temperature rose by 1 degree, but that’s how they like to present it.

  18. Suggestion to IPCC:
    1. Pick one of your “scientists” and have him/her crawl out of the basement and go down to a place where the Sea meets the Shore.
    2. Stand there for about 20 years and try to discern any noticeable change.
    3. If, by chance, keen eyesight notices any change, please make note if fear or hysteria overcomes him/her.
    4. If, 30 years ago, anybody at IPCC had thought of this, that single experiment would better inform the World’s population than 10,000 computer models.

    1. I’d be curious to see how this gets measured…1 foot a century is pretty slow.

  19. This entire story is false.

    A key underlying paper had to be withdrawn due to poor statistical methods.

    Resplandy et al. Part 5: Final outcome
    Posted on September 25, 2019 by niclewis | 39 Comments
    By Nic Lewis
    The editors of Nature have retracted the Resplandy et al. paper.
    The bulk of my criticisms were largely accepted by the authors of the study. However, it was evident from their related Realclimate article that in their submitted correction they had also made a change in an unconnected assumption, with the effect of offsetting much of the reduction in their ocean heat uptake estimate that correcting their statistical errors would have caused.

    Nearly ten months have passed since then, without Nature publishing the authors’ correction.

    However, Ruth Dixon has just spotted that the Resplandy et al. paper has today been retracted, at Nature’s request.
    I believe that this saga, as well as showing how ineffective journal peer review tends to be in spotting problematic issues in papers, illustrates the need for a much closer involvement of statisticians in climate science research. That was a point also made in one of the articles highlighted in Judith’s latest Week in Review post: Climate science needs professional statisticians.


    This was known almost a year ago, but the faithful could not stomach the pain, so put off the withdrawal.

    Nature is highly politicized on this issue.

    Ron Bailey should know better!

    KMW should fire him, pronto.

  20. Global Warming is very real. Man made? Not much of it.

    The earth warming is a good thing, see the massive swathes of land and ocean that will now be fertile.

    Yes, shit’s gonna have to adapt, which involves shit dieing.

    Every bit of this warming will come to a quick and sudden halt the moment a decent volcano goes off or a pretty good size asteroid strikes the earth. Meanwhile, we should enjoy it while it lasts.

    No, giving the politicians of this earth power over every ounce of energy isn’t even remotely a good or decent idea, it’s suicide.

    Go watch the “Inconvenient Truth” and realize that the same people are still making money off doing the same old song and dance. People who own mansions and multiple personal jets btw….

    Show me one person who is actually acting like this is an emergency and not straight up virtue signalling for fame, power or fortune.

    You want to see a real environmental disaster? Watch governments go to war over this shit, that’ll be a real fucking disaster.

    1. “Yes, shit’s gonna have to adapt, which involves shit dieing.”

      I only wish someone had developed a theory that explains all the change and evolution that occurs as the planet very, very, very, very, very, gradually changes in every way, not just adjusted temperature.

      1. The “very, very, very, very, gradually” is a bit of a misconception. In our very short period of time in our records, it seems extremely gradual; in reality, there are massive sudden changes that mother nature has adapted to quite well. We just haven’t hit any major sudden changes that anyone has been able to really record, there are a few exceptions that no one wants to talk about. Volcanoes have gone off, forests have been deleted, and oceans have been covered in oil. Hell, we’ve even heavily irradiated oceans, islands and whole Russian regions. Mother nature shrugged it off and the media moved on. Those places are still flourishing. The arrogance of man is astounding. But it is still dwarfed on a planetary scale by the perseverance of “mother nature.”
        That being said, nothing will stop junk scientist and opportunistic journo’s with a camera from over sensationalizing every straw in some turtles mouth or every glacier that needs a funeral. There will always be zealots yearning for religion. Looks like they’ve found it.

  21. That will be a real bitch for Obama’s new oceanside home. On the other hand instead of retiring to a beach house the beach will come to me. I’m a glass is half full kind of guy.

    1. Actually, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be, and you are a horrible person for destroying the planet by having such a large glass.
      (please try to use the proper words as you agree with the obvious settled science. Thank you.)

  22. Pedant note – while the PH of ocean water has fallen, it is still a base, not an acid. To call a base more acidic sounds like propaganda to me.

    1. I had to look and just as I suspected GOOGLE SEZ: “In seawater carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid, which in turn forms bicarbonate and carbonate ions. … In fact, seawater has a relatively stable pH of about 8.3”
      If Ph value increases, acidity falls. So the oceans becoming more alkaline, not more acidic, yes?

  23. just As nicole Answered i Am dAzzled thAt A person Able to mAke $6142 in A few weeks on the . did you look At this webpAge ><<HERE☛  www.cashin3.com

  24. Well this calls for drastic measures. What we should not do is look at clean nuclear power or planting more trees. What we should do is look at giving more money to wind and solar companies who can kick it back to left-wing politicians.

  25. Researchers have very high confidence that marine heatwaves—defined as when the daily sea surface temperature exceeds the local 99th percentile over the period 1982 to 2016—have very likely doubled in frequency since 1982 and are increasing in intensity.

    During one of these heatwaves, how long does it take a fish to figure out that it is hot and swim down to a comfortable temperature?

    1. Depends on the fish.

  26. Ronald Bailey
    September.26.2019 at 12:15 am
    C: Actually the data for the rate of warming for various layers of the oceans is extensively discussed in the report. And it’s not satellite data but some 3,000 Argo floats that report data for the top 2,000 meters of the oceans since 1999.

    I appreciate the additional info, Ron. But if the oceans comprise 1,350,000,000 cu km, that means one Argo float per 450,000 cu km, with no sensors in the lower 1,700 m. I would also hazard a guess that the Argo floats are not positioned equidistant from each other, but are clustered, making the unmeasured area even larger. So what percentage of the oceans is actually being measured?

    FTR: Since 1993 the rate of ocean warming and thus heat uptake has more than doubled (likely)from 3.22 ± 1.61 ZJ yr–1 (0–700 m depth) and 0.97 ± 0.64 ZJ yr–1 (700–2000 m) between 1969 and 1993, to 6.28 ± 0.48 ZJ yr–1 (0–700 m) and
    3.86 ± 2.09 ZJ yr–1 (700–2000 m)

    where the central 66% of estimates across the ensemble (i.e., the 17–83% range) would be termed a likely range

    Likely is not in any way equivalent to ‘virtually certain’ except in the eye of a prejudiced person.

    For 35 years now, I have been waiting for someone to convince me that climate science is not junk. Still waiting.

    1. It’s not junk per se (basic greenhouse gas theory is solid), but it is based in highly flawed regression analysis that uses incomplete data sets, questionable data gathering practices, and attempts to pass off results that fall within the error term as statistically meaningful. Any experienced statistician will tell you that much. It’s not the fault of the IPCC or foul play as some people might suspect. You just can’t really use regression analysis to reliably measure and predict infinitesimally small changes.

  27. “The oceans are warming, becoming more acidic, and rising faster as a result of man-made climate change,…”

    This is all true, and as such, you should sell your oceanfront property to me for a penny per thousand dollars valuation.

    1. Do you have the human ingenuity and increased wealth necessary to keep the seas in abeyance?

  28. WHO CARES??? Spending trillions in a quixotic effort to change the weather isn’t going to help. Based on the massive population growth & industrialization in the 3rd world if the climate is changing we can’t do a damn thing about it anyways. The good news is the poor b4strds in Siberia & Barrow Alaska might finally get some decent weather for a change. Plus we’ll have the entire continent of Antarctica to emigrate to.

  29. Yeah yeah yeah anyone who unquestioning.y trust the IPCC as an absolute source of truth needs to check in to one of those rooms whith soft white covering on all the walls.

    Absolute surface temp measurements over time indicate that the agerage sea surface temp has increased about half a degree C since the turn of twentith century (from the 19th, not into the 21st). I’d like to see IPCC’s source data and its origin before even considering giv-ng them the benefit of the doubt.

    I remember I think it was two or three years ago, satellite images showed the arcitic sea ice covering to be about a third less than normal for that time of year. NO ONE went to have a look… but a bit later it was realised that the winds had been very strong that season, and blowing from the west, thus blowing massive amounts of the thin sea ice into the east, and piling it up far more deeply than normal. Amonth later the winds had shifted back to normal patterns, and the ice that had “disappeared” had sorted itself out and was right back where it normally was…. an anlisis of surfact temp readings over the area showed that season to be very near the normal. Except for wind direction.
    The hysteria over “the arctic ice is melting we’re all dooooooommmmeeeedddd” pretty much vapourised when the truth was observed. No retractions, re-do’s, corrections.. just left aside hoping it will fall down the memory hole.

    1. “Except for wind direction.”

      Cyclonic winds (that’s hurricanes to you) in the Arctic Ocean strong enough to clear sea ice is very far from the normal. The event of 2012 I assume you are referring to was so special it was given its own name, “The Great Arctic Cyclone.” Your notion that this event has been somehow scrubbed from the history books is ludicrous.

  30. Hmm..the authors of the report are called the International Panel on Climate Change. I wonder if any of them would have their grant’s renewed if they didn’t conclude any climate change?

    1. Stop being a moron.

      1. Muscling in on your domain?

  31. This is a big problem for humanity!

  32. The IPCC (International Police Commie Commission) adopted by Al Gore – D and the Clinton Administration?

  33. The Obamas bought a house in Martha’s Vinyard, thus climate change is a hoax.

    Ladies and fuckstains, the intellectual might of American conservatism remains intact.

  34. Oceans don’t take on more CO2 with warming. They release more CO2. Also, acidification is a meme and beneficial for aquatic biodiversity.

  35. I think it’s funny that these ships go out trying to prove global warming, and end up sticking in ice that we were told melted 10 years ago.

    In some places, we’re getting record ice build-up, but I guess that’s global warming too.

    1. “In some places, we’re getting record ice build-up, but I guess that’s global warming too.”

      Take a little time and look into Trump’s Chinese Hoax Theory. I’m sure you’ll find it persuasive.

      1. Like many of Trump’s comments, this is an oversimplification. Global warming is a failed hypothesis, since its predictions have been disproven by events. Many of the alarmist projections such as an ice free Arctic and endangered polar bears are hoaxes.

  36. If Canada and the United States are among the largest energy users per capita than the other countries in the world, why should we allow immigration into the US? We are destroying the planet by allowing more people to immigrate into the US so they can create a bigger energy footprint and completely go against climate change.

  37. Sad to see that Ronald Bailey thinks he can understand climate change. Wait a few centuries or millennia for the data to come in, and be processed, and our descendants will see that climate change models and theories were not reality.

    Of course the oceans are warming, if they are not cooling. One or the other is always happening. Equilibrium will never exist. Don’t get in a panic, just adapt, if you need to.

  38. Here’s a thread today from WUWT that undermines the credibility of the IGPOCC report relied upon by Bailey,

    New IPCC report on ocean warming cites a flawed and retracted paper
    Anthony Watts / 11 hours ago September 27, 2019

    A major new report about the dramatic warming of the oceans cites a 2018 Nature paper on the topic that was retracted earlier this week — the same day, in fact, that the report dropped.

    But one of the authors of that paper tells Retraction Watch that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report, released September 25, must have meant to cite a different paper by the same authors.

    The report concluded that: It is virtually certain that the global ocean has warmed unabated since 1970 and has taken up more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system (high confidence). Since 1993, the rate of ocean warming has more than doubled (likely).

    What makes the flawed citation more remarkable is that researchers have been aware of errors in the analysis for more than 10 months. As we — and others — have reported, almost immediately after publication of the paper Nic Lewis blogged about his concerns with the analysis, concerns that eventually prompted the retraction.
    This latest blunder seems pretty par for the course with the IPCC, and as we’ve seen in the past they’ve not only used “grey literature” but travel brochures as references to “scientific” assessments. This latest blunder underscores the worthlessness of the IPCC to real science.

    1. Indeed, I pointed this out above:

      September.26.2019 at 7:44 am
      This entire story is false.

      A key underlying paper had to be withdrawn due to poor statistical methods.

      Resplandy et al. Part 5: Final outcome
      Posted on September 25, 2019 by niclewis | 39 Comments
      By Nic Lewis
      The editors of Nature have retracted the Resplandy et al. paper.

  39. Has anything predicted by the IPCC come to pass?

    1. NOPE — NOT A SINGLE one/model/prediction has materialized. But it seems that hasn’t phased the psychotic cheer-leading of propaganda any.

      Oh wait sorry – that’s why they went from “global warming” to “climate change” — All be darn; the weather DOES CHANGE!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.