Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

In an attempt to cut to the chase on this one, my understanding is that the science marks the cut-off btwn. "surface" and "deep" ocean waters at 700m. Maybe a bit arbitrary, but serves as an attempt to distinguish btwn. water temp changes due to atmospheric warming that more directly affects "surface" waters, and longer-term "sinks" which should show up as warming in deeper waters.

Is this correct and, if so, has there been any evidence of warming in deeper waters?

Sorry, but my eyes start to glaze over with the protracted he said/she said colloquies.

OK, here's the NASA article straight off their website saying no evidence of deep ocean warming. It's from 2014 so maybe dated. Or maybe I'm just a bit dated from not checking into the thread for a couple of days.

Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

In an attempt to cut to the chase on this one, my understanding is that the science marks the cut-off btwn. "surface" and "deep" ocean waters at 700m. Maybe a bit arbitrary, but serves as an attempt to distinguish btwn. water temp changes due to atmospheric warming that more directly affects "surface" waters, and longer-term "sinks" which should show up as warming in deeper waters.

Is this correct and, if so, has there been any evidence of warming in deeper waters?

Sorry, but my eyes start to glaze over with the protracted he said/she said colloquies.

I posted this graph earlier here. This is from the study "Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades", published in the scientific journal Nature, January 18, 2016. As such it may represent the most current understanding of changes in ocean heat content.

Abstract
Formal detection and attribution studies have used observations and climate models to identify an anthropogenic warming signature in the upper (0–700 m) ocean1, 2, 3, 4. Recently, as a result of the so-called surface warming hiatus, there has been considerable interest in global ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the deeper ocean, including natural and anthropogenically forced changes identified in observational5, 6, 7, modelling8, 9 and data re-analysis10, 11 studies. Here, we examine OHC changes in the context of the Earth’s global energy budget since early in the industrial era (circa 1865–2015) for a range of depths. We rely on OHC change estimates from a diverse collection of measurement systems including data from the nineteenth-century Challenger expedition12, a multi-decadal record of ship-based in situ mostly upper-ocean measurements, the more recent near-global Argo floats profiling to intermediate (2,000 m) depths13, and full-depth repeated transoceanic sections5. We show that the multi-model mean constructed from the current generation of historically forced climate models is consistent with the OHC changes from this diverse collection of observational systems. Our model-based analysis suggests that nearly half of the industrial-era increases in global OHC have occurred in recent decades, with over a third of the accumulated heat occurring below 700 m and steadily rising.

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).

The full study is behind a paywall However, you can read an article about the study here in The Guardian.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Exile

mr_f -- thank you for your patience & time in explaining this. I, for one, always welcome such discussion on the science, at least those issues which seem pretty fundamental to the CC debate, at least to this layman. Although personal vilification seems to dominate the discourse these days, the reality is that most people are not so ideologically invested and share the same basic environmental goals, but have varying degrees of trust from those who zealously advocate one side or the other. It is the majority in the middle, however, who will ultimately need convincing one way or the other to get policy choices implemented.

I have long understood in more basic terms the distinction btwn. gross & net CO2 emissions, but thanks for discussing it in more detail. This was presumably why, for example, Jack kept bringing up the sequestration issue. Some on this thread don't seem to understand the educational value in considering conflicting science, especially when it leads to more than the one conclusion they happen to prefer. In my line of work, opposing parties are required to acknowledge and agree to any facts or opinions which are not in dispute, and then argue about disputed and contentious facts & opinions by making "assumptions" for the sake of argument. As the facts are developed, this is usually an effective way of advancing the truth without getting into useless & wasteful personalization and other irrelevancies.

My initial take on your explanation of what I gather is the mainstream IPCC position is that it requires critical assumptions which themselves are not settled science. Btw, in my (non-scientific) mind, I agree it seems easier to categorize CO2 emissions as "natural" vs. "anthropogenic," but to discuss carbon "sinks" as "natural" since it is a natural process which humans have little or no influence over. Fwiw, here's my initial take, and feel free to "debunk" and/or comment as you may wish.

I'll start with your conclusion that "the *only* reason atmospheric CO2 is increasing at the moment is because we are emitting it," based on scientific evidence which (quite plausibly) assumes that anthropogenic emissions are exceeding the capacity of the sinks. But SailOar recently posted an article where scientists theorized that it wasn't a question of exceeding the sinks' overall capacity to absorb the net increase in CO2, but rather to keep up with the rate at which we are emitting. In the short run this is perhaps a distinction without a difference, but in the long run could be critical for the planet's ability to "heal" itself should some of the predictions of doom come true.

Just to be clear, it isn't really an "assumption" that our emissions are exceeding the capacity of the sinks. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing by an amount less than what we are putting there. Those measurements are really not in question. But your point about rates and potential for those rates to change is well taken. I will give you 2 more cents of my thoughts, for whatever they are worth.

I don't think it is unreasonable to consider all the sinks to be "natural" as you state (that is how I initially categorized them in my response). They are all natural processes. My point was really just that we have influenced those processes, which becomes important when you start to consider whether those sinks will increase or decrease in the future, "heal" as you say, or get worse.

For example: the ocean is taking up more CO2 than it is releasing at the moment. (There are various sources of both experimental and field data to support this.) The exchange (diffusion) at the surface is determined by the relative concentrations in the atmosphere and the water (which becomes further complicated by conversion of CO2 to organic carbon through photosynthesis in the water -- altering the concentration in the water -- as well as rates of mixing with deeper waters). But generally speaking, if we increase the concentration of the atmosphere, more CO2 will be dissolved in the ocean because there will be a larger diffusive gradient in concentration between the atmosphere and the ocean. So we as we increase atmospheric CO2, we are influencing the net exchange of CO2 with the ocean -- a carbon sink indirectly caused by humans. However, as has been pointed out, CO2 is relatively less soluble in warm water than cold water, so as the planet warms, that sink may become a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere depending on the balance of those two physical processes. If you accept that increased atmospheric CO2 warms the planet, then this is a positive feedback.

On the land side, if increased atmospheric CO2 increases photosynthesis rates (there is certainly evidence to support this), then that net sink may become larger as we increase atmospheric CO2. If overall a warming world also increases plant growth (there is less evidence to support this -- there will be "winners" and "losers" in terms of growing conditions) then this would be a negative feedback. A few things to consider on that: CO2 is only one thing required for plant growth. Plants are CO2 limited, so increased CO2 does increase growth. I believe it was Delfin that mentioned his experience with commercial greenhouses and this impact. But he also mentioned that they control water and nutrients. In natural ecosystems, the CO2 fertilization effect (increased growth in higher CO2) will likely have diminishing returns as plants become more resource limited (increased growth requires increased nutrients). There is experimental evidence both in the lab and controlled field plots to support this limitation (for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../411469a0.html ). Additionally, respiration rates (particularly soil decomposition) increases as temperature increase. This could result in lower levels of carbon storage in soils (increased net emissions) particularly in places such as melting permafrost. This has the potential to be a large positive feedback.

Originally Posted by Exile

And it seems to me that your conclusion also assumes that the predominant cause of our purported warming trend is anthropogenic, and mostly attributable to the net increase in CO2 emissions. But if, as many other scientists believe, we are in a mostly natural long-term warming trend (with human influences contributing) as many scientists also believe, then the reduced capacity of the sinks to balance out the net emissions increase may have more to do with the higher (mainly surface ocean) temps than the increase in emissions. Increased CO2 alone, after all, doesn't seem to pose a big threat, and some scientists believe its "greening" effect is beneficial.

Again, just to be clear, my conclusion (that we are the cause of the present increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration) does not in any way rely on an assumption that CO2 is the cause of the warming. There is plenty of other evidence to discuss about the connection between CO2 and warming, but the our emissions would be changing CO2 concentrations either way. Altered atmospheric CO2 concentration only matters if there is a connection. I think that is an important distinction to make. You can't really have a reasonable discussion on the other evidence until you establish that we are causing an increase.

Originally Posted by Exile

Finally, it makes sense that, as you note, 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." But the explanation for why the sinks cannot now handle this "extra" 3% flux (as of the 1990's) seems to rest primarily on the data that shows lower CO2 concentrations over the 800,000 years prior to industrialization. OK, and assuming that data is correct, we still have the historical record of warming, i.e. a much longer history of warming & cooling irrespective of net increases in anthropogenic CO2 since they occurred prior to industrialization and, as you note, were significantly lower.

That is why I re-mentioned the isotope studies which confirm this. There are multiple lines of evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused by us. I only brought up the ice core record to put the recent changes in perspective. Things are generally fairly well balanced. (And if CO2 concentration was all over the place in the fairly recent past, the changes we are causing probably wouldn't matter.)

But I can't overemphasize this point: we are putting twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as is being accumulated there. Something must be taking up that additional CO2. There has to be a net sink from the rest of the Earth system.

Originally Posted by Exile

I know you were responding more specifically to Delfin's representations concerning gross anthropogenic vs. natural CO2 emissions and so to that extent your point about analyzing net measurements is well taken. But I'm not sure I agree that Delfin's analysis was all that misleading given the variables outlined above, and the assumptions needed to support them.

But then I'm not a scientist nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night . . . so have at it.

I think the key point on whether his statement was misleading was his conclusion that our mitigation actions would have little-to-no impact on atmospheric concentration because the natural sources are larger. I am not arguing that the currently specified targets are sufficient, but we absolutely could take action to stop or significantly slow increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

I am sure I neglected to address some of your points. Feel free to bring them back up if you think I missed something you wanted to hear me blather on about.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is this correct and, if so, has there been any evidence of warming in deeper waters?

Sorry, but my eyes start to glaze over with the protracted he said/she said colloquies.

The evidence that LE posted (and provided a link to) is the paper that SailOar also pointed you to. It is (and always was) presenting evidence of warming in the deep ocean, despite the goofy argument that detracted from that point.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I posted this graph earlier here. This is from the study "Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades", published in the scientific journal Nature, January 18, 2016. As such it may represent the most current understanding of changes in ocean heat content.


The full study is behind a paywall However, you can read an article about the study here in The Guardian.

Here is a copy of the paper that is not behind a paywall:

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/...te2915-aop.pdf

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I doubt you'll get a response to such an obviously rational, fact-based post. Just like the lack of response to your pointing out the decreased carbon emissions from fracking technology's ability to produce plentiful, affordable, and cleaner natural gas. But then the silence always speaks volumes.

Thanks again for your sincere efforts to promote a more civilized and science-based discourse here on CF. Not.

There's no magic wand; the sales of oil will not be stopping suddenly, so the rational and fact-based point is kind of irrelevant.

A very important benefit of reducing dependence on fossil fuel is not being vulnerable to foreign manipulation of supply, as experienced in the 1973 Oil Crisis. The whole Middle East region remains a big effing mess in large part due to the aftereffects of complex and troubling relationships the west made with dictators and theocracies in order to keep the oil flowing.

Of course having more supply options in recent years (like Canadian tarsands oil at below world prices. You're welcome) and now more domestic supply such as natural gas from fracking, has given the US more energy security. And it's indisputable that cheap and abundant natural gas is making it possible for the US to phase out coal sooner. This is good.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, here's the NASA article straight off their website saying no evidence of deep ocean warming. It's from 2014 so maybe dated. Or maybe I'm just a bit dated from not checking into the thread for a couple of days.

Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

Modelling trumps real world observations in modern science.

sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/nclimate2915-aop.pdf

The deep (2,000m–bottom) layer OHC change estimate 5 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 5 . The remarkable agreement between the deep
OHC change estimate and the CMIP5 MMM (Fig. 1d) may thus
be fortuitous. Nevertheless, our view is that these observations are
invaluable; for the first time we can quantitatively assess global OHC
changes in the deep ocean.

What is CMIP5? www.marine.csiro.au/~bro753/papers/021_Grose_CMIP5.pdf


Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

To arrive at their conclusion, the JPL scientists did a straightforward subtraction calculation, using data for 2005-2013 from the Argo buoys, NASA's Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, and the agency’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites. From the total amount of sea level rise, they subtracted the amount of rise from the expansion in the upper ocean, and the amount of rise that came from added meltwater. The remainder represented the amount of sea level rise caused by warming in the deep ocean.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Modelling trumps real world observations in modern science.

sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/nclimate2915-aop.pdf
What is CMIP5? www.marine.csiro.au/~bro753/papers/021_Grose_CMIP5.pdf


Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

Congratulation on finally actually reading something.

Are you just joining this conversation? Welcome.

For a refresher, I quoted the exact same section you bolded several pages ago and stated that the authors acknowledged the large uncertainties in their estimates of the deepest layers and do not seem to be making any strong claim about it.

I presume you noticed that the parts of their study which they feel are stronger (i.e. not listed as possibly fortuitous) agree strongly with the NASA article: that there is significant warming in the 700-2000m range. You know, deep in the ocean even if not all the way to the bottom.

All together now: both studies say there is significant warming below 700m using multiple lines of evidence.

Neat.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

I doubt you'll get a response to such an obviously rational, fact-based post. Just like the lack of response to your pointing out the decreased carbon emissions from fracking technology's ability to produce plentiful, affordable, and cleaner natural gas. But then the silence always speaks volumes.

Sooner or later, global warming or no global warming, fossil fuel industry workers the world over are going to lose their jobs -- simply because what they are extracting is finite.

But transmitterdan is correct, if we transition to other energy sources, old-energy workers will either have learn new skills or go hungry. In the US coal mines are closing left and right, with even big coal companies going bankrupt. This is happening in part because cheap natural gas is out-pricing coal, but also because of the heighten awareness of the extreme amount of CO2 produced by coal.

A rich country, like the US, may be generous and help all those laid-off workers to retrain or go on some sort of government relief program. In a poor country, where most of the profits are captured by a few super-rich people, I think we can expect a lot of hurting people.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Congratulation on finally actually reading something.

Are you just joining this conversation? Welcome.

For a refresher, I quoted the exact same section you bolded several pages ago and stated that the authors acknowledged the large uncertainties in their estimates of the deepest layers and do not seem to be making any strong claim about it.

I presume you noticed that the parts of their study which they feel are stronger (i.e. not listed as possibly fortuitous) agree strongly with the NASA article: that there is significant warming in the 700-2000m range. You know, deep in the ocean even if not all the way to the bottom.

All together now: both studies say there is significant warming below 700m using multiple lines of evidence.

Neat.

But you said there was no difference.

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

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But you said there was no difference.

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

????

That is what I just said again. Both studies state there is significant warming below 700m.

The second study presents evidence that there is also warming below 2000m, but acknowledges the limitations of that evidence.

I think I have now said it dozens of times. It is what I have been saying the entire time. Having fun? I can keep saying it if you want. Multiple lines of evidence show that there is significant warming below 700m.


Here are some examples of me stating the same thing:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2117725 (you called this one "bunkum". remember that?)
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2117569 (you have to scroll to the last paragraph to see where I said it in this one.)
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2118125
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2118169
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2118182 (this is where I quoted the uncertainties that you just "discovered")
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2118196

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

????

That is what I just said again. Both studies show significant warming below 700m.

The second study presents evidence that there is also warming below 2000m, but acknowledges the limitations of that evidence.

I think I have now said it dozens of times. Having fun? I can keep saying it if you want. Multiple lines of evidence show that there is significant warming below 700m.

The focus of the NASA article was depths below 1995 m, not 700 m. I guess you missed that.

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

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The focus of the NASA article was depths below 1995 m, not 700 m. I guess you missed that.

Wow. You are having a really hard time with this. Please, please, please, please read this quote from the NASA article:

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.

Again: the NASA article states that there was warming below 700m.

Since you quoted the brief about their method, you must realize that they had to quantify that warming to estimate the thermal expansion that occurred in that layer.

[Christian Ho]

Hello Everybody,
as a newcomer, what I really was planning to do, was posting my first thread. As I went through this forum and read this topic, I decided that it fits so perfectly, I will have to answer here:

What is going on?

Whilst poles are melting on all sides, typical February weather is spoiling our May. It started last Saturday (6 days) and before next weekend there is no improvement in sight. Yesterday it actually became so dark during the normally bright sunny day, that at home we needed to switch on the lights in order to be able to see something. But see for yourself what is going on around here:
https://youtu.be/pAGvTZfN288
Totally unusual for this time of year and don’t forget, it’s called “Costa del Sol” (The coast of the sun)!
The gods are angry and Poseidon smiles wisely!
Perhaps it wasn’t at all the best idea to start all this business with the combustion engine approximately 150 years ago. Who knows?

Anyhow, all the best to you, your Christian Ho

[Reefmagnet]

..and there you have it. Warmist pedantic's, along with the odd ad-hominem thrown in for good measure

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