Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[TurninTurtle]

Well all that means is NASA is no longer a legitimate source of data according to the MMGW cult.

Can't recognize any data that contradicts the cult.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Exile

Since you are suddenly so interested in civil debate, why don't you also explain why the 3% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions the IPCC estimates is so misleading. Your conclusion, not mine, and it might just get the discussion back to some sort of adult level.

Exile, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here with my 2cents here (worth at least 0.75cents). Pardon my long and wordy answer, but I take your requests for more information at face value. I know you are already aware of much of this, and I know much of it has been discussed on this thread already, but to avoid the impending "but what about", I thought I would try to be thorough.

The reason that statistic is misleading (and I assume Delfin is well aware of this) is that he is listing gross emissions rather than net emissions. Yes, there are large natural carbon fluxes to the atmosphere and there always have been. There are also large natural fluxes of carbon out of the atmosphere. It doesn't matter that natural sources are much larger than anthropogenic sources. They could be millions of times larger with no impact on atmospheric concentration if they are balanced by reciprocal processes of equal magnitude. It matters what the net emissions are -- the balance of sources and sinks.

Natural sources and sinks have been reasonably balanced over relatively long timescales. We know this because the concentration of CO2 have only fluctuated between 170 and 300 ppm over at least the last 800,000 years according to ice-core records. We are now well above that range. So the relevant question is how much of that change was caused by human emissions. Certainly, as many have cited, they varied over a much larger range in the more distant past, due to natural processes. Natural sources and sinks may be out of balance at the moment. This could explain the change in atmospheric CO2. In fact they are out of balance currently. I will get to that momentarily.

By far the largest fluxes to the atmosphere are respiration (about 220Gt CO2 from soil decomposition and about 220Gt CO2 from plant respiration) and gas exchange with the ocean (about 330 Gt CO2). Those 3 terms add up to essentially the entire 770Gt CO2 from natural sources quoted in the IPCC table that Delfin cited. There are other smaller terms that others have mentioned, such as volcanos, forest fires, etc. But of course, the respiration term (both soil and plant and other) and forest fires are offset by photosynthesis (you can't respire any carbon that wasn't originally taken up via photosynthesis). The ocean-atmosphere carbon exchange is a 2-way process. (And yes, I understand those processes also remove our emissions from the atmosphere, I will get there momentarily too.)

The real answer to "what is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2" is not found by comparing our emissions to gross natural emission. Instead it requires answering a) "are natural processes sufficient to remove our additional emissions from the atmosphere at the rate at which we emit", Or, b) "is there a recent imbalance in the natural processes resulting in more net natural emissions (sources minus sinks) which are much larger than our emissions".

A quick look at the table Delfin cited should give you your answer. We emit over 20 Gt CO2 per year (based on 1990s numbers) and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 10 Gt per year. It should be pretty obvious that the other half of our emissions were absorbed somewhere else in the Earth system. (About half of that was absorbed by the ocean, and about half was absorbed by land-based sinks -- such as the increased photosynthesis others have mentioned). Add the natural sources from the IPCC table (770 Gt CO2) to the sinks (-781 Gt CO2) and you get a net natural CO2 emission of *negative* 11 Gt CO2.

The sum of the natural systems is currently a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 -- and that is including all 770 Gt CO2 emitted through natural sources: the respiration, ocean-atmosphere exchange, volcanoes, forest fires, etc. But this sink is not sufficient to offset our emissions -- the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by about 10 Gt CO2 per year. This means that the *only* reason atmospheric CO2 is increasing at the moment is because we are emitting it.

You may notice that I lumped all of the sinks into the "natural" category, which may be contentious. The reason the ocean is absorbing more CO2 than it is releasing is due to increased atmospheric CO2. The extent to which photosynthesis increases is driven in part by the increased atmospheric concentration. Since we are driving the increase, perhaps those should be considered anthropogenic sinks. I think that is largely semantics. If you prefer, we can call it balanced natural sources and sinks, and net 10 Gt CO2 anthropogenic emissions. Either way, we still own the increase in atmospheric CO2.

The only way to conclude that natural sources are the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 (97%), and reducing our emissions would have little impact (3%), is to assume that natural sinks increased to a rate that was more than sufficient to offset our total emissions, but there exists some other recent large increase in natural emissions -- an increase that hasn't happened in 800,000 years. I am aware of no evidence that supports that, and it seems to me it would take a huge leap of faith. Even if that were the case, since the amount of CO2 is increasing at a rate that is roughly half of the rate that we emit, we could offset that natural increase by reducing our emissions.

As Jack has pointed out previously, this is not the only line of evidence to support our emissions as the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2. Isotope studies have come to the same conclusion.

None of this is to say the factlet is false. Anthropogenic emissions ARE only 3% of gross natural emissions. But anthropogenic emissions are far larger than net natural emissions.

Originally Posted by newhaul

That is your refute . I post a report from NASA and you post an article from time mag online come on at least try to get legit sourced report to counter with .

?? Nature Climate Change is a fairly prestigious journal.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This study is at depths of 1995 metres or greater.

This study is at depths of up to 700 metres

Apples and oranges.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I certainly don't want to put words in LE's mouth, but does the NASA study contradict his claim that "deep" ocean is absorbing some of the heat? Did I miss where he originally claimed the depth of "deep"? I certainly could have missed it as I mostly skim this thread. But...

A NASA article showed evidence that the *very* deep ocean was not warming. And he posted a link that showed that the deep, but less deep, ocean is warming. The NASA statement even mentions that other studies of "deep" ocean which show warming were looking at different depths, and their study does not contradict that. That portion of the ocean is both "deep" and warming.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I certainly don't want to put words in LE's mouth, but does the NASA study contradict his claim that "deep" ocean is absorbing some of the heat? Did I miss where he originally claimed the depth of "deep"? I certainly could have missed it as I mostly skim this thread. But...

A NASA article showed evidence that the *very* deep ocean was not warming. And he posted a link that showed that the deep, but less deep, ocean is warming. The NASA statement even mentions that other studies of "deep" ocean which show warming were looking at different depths, and their study does not contradict that. That portion of the ocean is both "deep" and warming.

The NASA article recognised that oceanic waters to 700 metres below the surface have warmed and made mention of this. In fact they basically stated pretty much what the NOAA(??) paper concluded 2 years down the track at these relative near surface depths. Their (NASA's) conclusion was basically that the ocean has not heated up to any measurable extent from depths of 1995 metres (the significance of this number, I'm guessing, is that it represents half the total volume of the world's oceans) and by implication was not "hiding" any "lost" heat that could explain the warming "pause" so oft quoted. In contrast, it seems to me, the temperatures within the top 700 metres from the surface mostly just reflect atmospheric temperature trends hence "apples and oranges".


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This study is at depths of 1995 metres or greater.

This study is at depths of up to 700 metres

Apples and oranges.

Apparently most everyone read only the Time magazine article that Lake-Effect referenced, but not the The Guardian article that the Time article referenced, nor the (linked paper) that Lake-Effect also provided a link to, which was the original source from, Nature Climate Change.

Had you read all the sources you would have found out that:

(from The Guardian)
US scientists discovered that much of the extra heat in the ocean is buried deep underwater, with 35% of the additional warmth found at depths below 700 meters. This means far more heat is present in the far reaches of the ocean than 20 years ago, when it contained just 20% of the extra heat produced from the release of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution...

Ocean water, which has a much higher heat capacity than air, has absorbed more than 90% of the excess heat and nearly 30% of the carbon dioxide generated by human consumption of fossil fuels. The vast Southern Ocean sucked up 1.2bn tonnes of carbon in 2011 alone – which is roughly equivalent to the European Union’s annual carbon output...

The deepwater heat content has increased by “several tenths of a degree” since the industrial revolution when averaged out across the globe, according to Peter Gleckler, lead author of the paper. Gleckler said that while this is less than the 0.5C warming averaged across the upper reaches of the ocean, it is still a “huge increase” and is gaining pace.

“When we discuss global warming, the most familiar way we do that is talk about temperature changes on the surface – but it’s clear that the oceans are doing the bulk of the work in terms of absorbing the heat in the system,” he said. “And if we want to really understand how much heat is being trapped, we can’t just look at the upper ocean anymore, we need to look deeper.

(from Nature Climate Change)

Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades


The three shaded wedges are combined similarly to the AR5 change in global energy inventory (ref. 15; Box 3.1 Fig. 1). The thick vertical grey bar represents a ±1 s.d. spread from the CMIP5 simulations about the year (1997) at which the MMM heat uptake reaches 50% of the net (1865–2015) industrial-era increase, and the thick horizontal grey bar indicates the CMIP5 ±1 s.d. spread in the year at which 50% the total accumulated heat is reached. Black (forcing included) and grey (forcing not included) triangles represent major twentieth- and twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions with magnitude represented by symbol size (Supplementary Information).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So once again we find that Reefmagnet, newhaul, and TurninTurtle are not keeping up with current science, and once again they are quick to cast aspersions on those they disagree with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thank you, mr_f, for taking the time to post your response.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Apples and oranges.

Agreed. But if we're looking at the issue of whether the ocean is warming or not, they're both relevant.

[SailOar]

Acidic Ocean Leads to Warped Skeletons for Young Coral | New York Times

Rising emissions of carbon dioxide create twin threats for coral in oceans around the world: warmer temperatures, which can cause mass bleachings, and ocean acidification, which can hinder the animals’ ability to build reefs.

But a new study published on Friday in the journal Science Advances suggests that ocean acidification may be the bigger worry in some waters.

Studying a chain of remote Australian islands in the Indian Ocean, researchers found that more acidic waters (those that have absorbed more atmospheric carbon dioxide) cause serious skeletal deformities in juvenile coral in subtropical waters.

Using 3-D imaging techniques, they saw that young coral from the Houtman Abrolhos islands developed skeletons that were missing sections or had very porous and fragile surfaces...



Other studies have shown similar effects of ocean acidification, but the researchers also discovered something that had not been seen in earlier studies of tropical coral development — higher temperatures didn’t have a negative effect on coral skeleton formation. In fact, warmer temperatures seemed to lessen the effects of carbon dioxide...

However, she was cautious about the implications for global reef development: “This is only one species of coral, and we think this is unique to the subtropics.”

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Apparently most everyone read only the Time magazine article that Lake-Effect referenced, but not the The Guardian article that the Time article referenced, nor the (linked paper) that Lake-Effect also provided a link to, which was the original source from, Nature Climate Change.

Had you read all the sources you would have found out that:



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So once again we find that Reefmagnet, newhaul, and TurninTurtle are not keeping up with current science, and once again they are quick to cast aspersions on those they disagree with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You could be right. Last time I checked the ocean had heated up 0.23 degrees Celsius on average since around the start of the industrial revolution. Must be in the ball park, as indicated by warmist's graphs discussing percentages as opposed to actual values which is usually the give-away that mountains are being made out of mole hills.

I'd also suggest that if le wanted us to read the Nature article he should have linked to it directly instead of providing a thrice removed one. But thanks regardless for pointing out that even the experts can't agree on this settled science thing.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'd also suggest that if le wanted us to read the Nature article he should have linked to it directly

I did, Einstein.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I did, Einstein.

Sorry. I'm a non Braniac with a social life. No time to follow poorly referenced obscure links.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Acidic Ocean Leads to Warped Skeletons for Young Coral | New York Times

Hey SailOar,. How much co2 do you think was generated in the pursuit of this study; and how much funding do you think was diverted from more pressing and needy causes for this absolutely pointless research?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'd also suggest that if le wanted us to read the Nature article he should have linked to it directly instead of providing a thrice removed one.

To me it seems pretty stupid for a non-expert to disagree with an expert without even reading the expert's original article.

But thanks regardless for pointing out that even the experts can't agree on this settled science thing.

I don't see it as a disagreement among experts, but rather as an advancement of the science of the deep oceans, which we've known very little about, but now know more of thanks to the recent addition of deep buoys to the Argo project, etc.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Massive network of robotic ocean probes gets smart upgrade | Nature

Oceanographers are already using data from the more than 3,900 floats in the international Argo array. These automated probes periodically dive to depths of 2,000 metres, measuring temperature and salinity before resurfacing to transmit their observations to a satellite (see ‘Diving deeper’). The US$21-million Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling Project (SOCCOM) is going a step further, deploying around 200 advanced probes to monitor several indicators of seawater chemistry and biological activity in the waters around Antarctica. A primary aim is to track the prodigious amount of carbon dioxide that flows into the Southern Ocean...

Meanwhile, another set of researchers hopes to extend the existing Argo array beyond its current 2,000-metre limit. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is spending about $1 million annually on a Deep Argo project to monitor ocean temperature and salinity down to 6,000 metres. The agency deployed nine Deep Argo floats south of New Zealand in January, and is planning similar pilot arrays in the Indian Ocean and the North Atlantic...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sorry. I'm a non Braniac with a social life. No time to follow poorly referenced obscure links.

Thank you very little. If your time is so limited, why was it so important to drop such a lame rebuttal here?

[mr_f]

I have to admit. This is a hilarious exchange. Thanks for the entertainment.

I mean, seriously, his post was 14 words long, two of which literally say "linked paper". Pure gold.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Fast forward two years... Global Warming Is Heating Up the Deep Ocean
(linked paper)

Originally Posted by newhaul

I post a report from NASA and you post an article from time mag online come on at least try to get legit sourced report to counter with .

Originally Posted by newhaul

it just goes to show the warmists dont seem to do exactly what they keep accusing us deniers of doing which is not reading the reports that are presented before making a rebuttal post.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'd also suggest that if le wanted us to read the Nature article he should have linked to it directly instead of providing a thrice removed one.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sorry. I'm a non Braniac with a social life. No time to follow poorly referenced obscure links.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

To me it seems pretty stupid for a non-expert to disagree with an expert without even reading the experts original article.

I don't see it as a disagreement among experts, but rather as an advancement of the science of the deep oceans, which we've known very little about, but now know more of thanks to the recent addition of deep buoys to the Argo project, etc.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Massive network of robotic ocean probes gets smart upgrade | Nature

No disagreement, huh? NASA says "negligible warming" in 2014 and NOAA says "it's been warming for 20 years", or words to that effect.

Right-ee-oh then!

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yep I know but it just goes to show the warmists dont seem to do exactly what they keep accusing us deniers of doing which is not reading the reports that are presented before making a rebuttal post.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sorry. I'm a non Braniac with a social life. No time to follow poorly referenced obscure links.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hey SailOar,. How much co2 do you think was generated in the pursuit of this study; and how much funding do you think was diverted from more pressing and needy causes for this absolutely pointless research?

Hey newhaul, who were you about again?