Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I have a problem with bunkum. And right now you're writing bunkum.

Bunkum. Interesting. With all due respect...

Your statement about the NASA article:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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.

Your statement about the Nature Climate Change paper:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This study is at depths of up to 700 metres

Not to put too fine a point on it, but both the NASA article and the Nature Climate Change article specifically address warming below 700m, not just "up to".

NASA:

Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.

Nature Climate Change:

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

Although they qualitatively agree on the "deep" warming below 700m, but above mid-depth, it is true that the newer NCC study shows warming in the deepest part of the ocean, which differs from the NASA article. And they clearly articulate the uncertainties related to the sparse measurements at these depths. But either way, as SailOar pointed out, new knowledge is a wonderful thing.

[transmitterdan]

Here's a conundrum for the environmental wing:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...ing-in-the-us/

Most of the reduction in CO2 emissions in the US can be laid at the feet of fracking. Cheap natural gas has reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 23% per GDP dollar. So not only in relative terms but in actual tons of emitted carbon the US is reducing CO2 every year without a corresponding decrease in GDP. GDP goes up but CO2 keeps going down. And we have fracking to thank.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Bunkum. Interesting. With all due respect...

Your statement about the NASA article:


Your statement about the Nature Climate Change paper:


Not to put too fine a point on it, but both the NASA article and the Nature Climate Change article specifically address warming below 700m, not just "up to".

NASA:


Nature Climate Change:


Although they qualitatively agree on the "deep" warming below 700m, but above mid-depth, it is true that the newer NCC study shows warming in the deepest part of the ocean, which differs from the NASA article. And they clearly articulate the uncertainties related to the sparse measurements at these depths. But either way, as SailOar pointed out, new knowledge is a wonderful thing.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Deep ocean not warming.
Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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

The "back" button's a be-arch.

It would seem in his haste to post a contra-headline our man LE was more concerned with a third hand article than the actual research paper.

But that doesn't mean they are in agreement still.

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

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The "back" button's a be-arch.


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

We seem to be talking past each other. I am well aware of those two posts. What is your point?

Both articles acknowledge warming below 700m, despite your assertions to the contrary.

And, as LE points out, the second, newer, article provides evidence for warming of the deepest part of the ocean.

How does any of that support your statements that the more recent article is about depths less than 700m? It is not. It is about all depths. Or that the prior article only acknowledges warming above 700m? It does not. It acknowledges warming below 700m and above mid-depth.

Really, I honestly have no idea what your argument is.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It would seem in his haste to post a contra-headline our man LE was more concerned with a third hand article than the actual research paper.

Huh?!? Honestly, are you experiencing numbness in your extremities? In all seriousness, I think you may be having a stroke.

Are you really still unable to see the link that is labeled "linked paper"? You know, the one LE provided and I keep quoting? The one that says that 35% of the accumulated heat is below 700m. And shows warming in the 2000m to the bottom layer as well?

[newhaul]

Actually I am talking about the lack of warming in well over 75% of the worlds oceanic volume. The NASA report states there is no appreciable warming in the deep ocean ( below 1.25 miles )

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually I am talking about the lack of warming in well over 75% of the worlds oceanic volume. The NASA report states there is no appreciable warming in the deep ocean ( below 1.25 miles )

newhaul, I understand that was your point. And I understand that LE provided a more recent paper that suggests there was warming at those depths (below 2000m). And I am aware that the study LE cites acknowledges very large uncertainties in their estimates of warming at those depths. In fact, I would go as far as to say those authors are not standing by that result in any meaningful way:

From the article LE cited:

The deep (2,000m–bottom) layer OHC change estimate is based on a 1992–2005 linear trend, constructed from differences between full-depth transoceanic section measurements taken during the 1990’s World Ocean Circulation Experiment and more recent repeats of these sections by the Global Ocean Ship-based Hydrographic Investigations Program (GO-SHIP). The spatial coverage of these repeat sections, although global, is sparse, and as a result uncertainty estimates for the abyssal trend are nearly as large as the trend itself. The remarkable agreement between the deep OHC change estimate and the CMIP5 MMM (Fig. 1d) may thus be fortuitous.

It doesn't really answer for me what reef is talking about. Both sets of authors acknowledge significant warming in depths from 700-2000m. (And state that can be considered "deep".)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

newhaul, I understand that was your point. And I understand that LE provided a more recent paper that suggests there was warming at those depths (below 2000m). And I am aware that the study LE cites acknowledges very large uncertainties in their estimates of warming at those depths. In fact, I would go as far as to say those authors are not standing by that result in any meaningful way:

From the article LE cited:


It doesn't really answer for me what reef is talking about. Both sets of authors acknowledge significant warming in depths from 700-2000m. (And state that can be considered "deep".)

OK got ya
I figured it out right away reefs issue wat LE posted an article that was supposed to refute my linked article but they say basicly the same thing ( I think that was his point)

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK got ya
I figured it out right away reefs issue wat LE posted an article that was supposed to refute my linked article but they say basicly the same thing ( I think that was his point)

Perhaps, but he claimed that LE's article was about depths less than 700m?

And to be clear, LE's article does show warming at depths below 2000m which disagrees with the NASA study (however weakly).

But more to the point, both articles show warming between 700m and 2000m. I am not going to argue about what the right definition of "deep" is. But that isn't considered the surface ocean, certainly. (Reef referred to it as "near surface depths".)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK got ya
I figured it out right away reefs issue wat LE posted an article that was supposed to refute my linked article but they say basicly the same thing ( I think that was his point)

Yep

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

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yep

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

Honestly, I don't get it. How could that possibly have been your point? Let's ignore the fact that LE's article shows warming below 2000m and the NASA article does not.

But this is what you said:

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

Please, in all seriousness, explain to me how that statement means "these articles say the same thing"?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Perhaps, but he claimed that LE's article was about depths less than 700m?

And to be clear, LE's article does show warming at depths below 2000m which disagrees with the NASA study (however weakly).

But more to the point, both articles show warming between 700m and 2000m. I am not going to argue about what the right definition of "deep" is. But that isn't considered the surface ocean, certainly. (Reef referred to it as "near surface depths".)

The contra-headline article link stated this..

U.S. scientists found that more heat — as much as 35% of additional warmth — is present deep underwater. This means that extra heat is reaching depths of 2,300ft compared to two decades ago, when it contained just 20% extra heat produced from the release of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution

Which is obviously wrong in the context of the actual research paper. So the question is why did LE post it and not just the link to the research paper? Want three guesses or is one enough?

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

[Gadagirl]

Were these facts posted yet. Such an extensive thread, so hard to keep up. Apologies if it was posted earlier.

What?!!!!!! They lied to us?!!!! Payed trolls?!!! Own a think tank of trolls?!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/sc...ents.html?_r=0

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The contra-headline article link stated this..



Which is obviously wrong in the context of the actual research paper. So the question is why did LE post it and not just the link to the research paper? Want three guesses or is one enough?

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

Could the media article have stated that more clearly? Absolutely. Would I have worded it differently? Of course. But it isn't exactly wrong. More heat is reaching depths of at least 700m, as they state. You know -- into the "deep" ocean. Good thing LE posted a link to the actual paper in case anyone was confused.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about suggesting LE had some ulterior motive by posting both the media article (more readable to some) and the actual paper (more relevant). Why is it bad to post both? Was posting both somehow hiding the paper from people like you that were unable to read 14 consecutive words to find the paper?

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

(which obviously he did)

But then again

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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

(or, you know, click the link he provided)

Do you really think LE was really trying to post a link that he thought contradicted what he was trying to say? Or do you think he was able to correctly interpret the poorly worded paragraph in the media article, or decided to read the paper he linked, and you are the only one confused?


But just to be clear. Which is it? Were the papers totally unrelated? Or did the papers say the exact same thing? You have claimed both were your point.

[Gadagirl]

Also, just saying, if you'd rather profit than argue, maybe consider the growth potential of renewable energy. IOW, even if you believe GW is a huge conspiracy to, I don't know,......destroy American principles, all of the people of the Appalachians, the oil companies?

Not sure why you fear change, unless you are among those mentioned, or of course, long term investors thereof. Or simply brain washed? Who knows? But if you want to profit, fossil fuels are not the future. And if you happen to want to "make America strong Again" you'd be wanting to make our technology, manufacturing, and implementation of renewable energy a priority since we lag far behind most other countries in this.

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive) | CleanTechnica

The 4th Largest Economy In The World Just Generated 90 Percent Of The Power It Needs From Renewables | ThinkProgress