Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No, ad-hominem involves falsely attacking someone's character because you don't agree with their point of view. That would be like me saying to you that I'm not going to argue with an idiot because it'll just drag me down to your level. But I'd never say that.

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

So you didn't read the wiki link.

Look, I get it. You're embarrassed. You didn't do your homework and now you are worried that you look silly in front of all your friends.

Best to just take a moment and collect yourself and come back when you are ready to join the discussion again.

When you get back, please describe what the NASA article says about warming below 700m.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

So you didn't read the wiki link.

Look, I get it. You're embarrassed. You didn't do your homework and now you are worried that you look silly in front of all your friends.

Best to just take a moment and collect yourself and come back when you are ready to join the discussion again.

When you get back, please describe what the NASA article says about warming below 700m.

You mean the reference to "some recent studies" in their science.nasa.gov article titled "Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed"

Was that it?

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

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You mean the reference to "some recent studies" in their science.nasa.gov article titled "Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed"

Was that it?

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

Wow. And you wonder why I have been (very reasonably) questioning your reading comprehension skills.

Please reread this post and respond:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2118933

I know you saw it, because you quoted it. It contains a quote and a link to the NASA paper which we are discussing. You have read the paper, right? You wouldn't be trolling without actually bothering to read what we are talking about, right?

[mr_f]

I'm not shy. I can keep posting this all day and all night.

Argo can be used to estimate warming in different layers of the upper ocean, as shown in Fig. 2. For example, the green and blue curves are for the 0–700 m and 700–2,000 m layers, respectively. The choice of 0–700 m in the upper layer reflects historical changes in sampling by in situ observations. Interannual variability in the upper 700m layer is large, and in fact accounts for 85% of the fractional variance of the entire 0–2,000 m layer variations. Thus, changes in the upper layer explain most of the interannual variability of net steric mean sea-level fluctuations. As for the linear trend, the upper 700 m layer accounts for 58% of the 0–2,000 m layer change, with a linear trend of 0.53 ± 0.13 mm yr−1 indicating a significant rise during this period. The 700–2,000 m depth layer shows a near- linear increase with a rate of 0.38 ± 0.05 mm yr−1 , and has smaller interannual variability than the top layer.

Or do you still think that newhaul was trying to trick you.

I do find it hilarious that you were "tricked" by both sides. There should be an award for that.

[mr_f]

Here is your trophy for the mr_f award for outstanding achievement in the field of "being confused"

[Exile]

Yo Reef & mr_f -- by all means continue your ping-pong match. But in the meantime, any chance one of you or someone else opining on how settled these presumably new techniques for measuring deep water are? Aren't the Argo sensors yet to be brought online? Is this perhaps why Nasa hasn't updated its website? And finally, what is the significance of the warming at the different levels?

Sorry . . . ltd. time to hang out here these days. If Jack were around I'd be admonished to do my own homework. But I do think these questions are a tad more relevant than the ping-pong match.

[Rustic Charm]

I know this is a risk in posting this and I don't want to give the impression I've been following this thread but I thought some of you might be interesed to know firstly about our little Island being in the news over this landmark and also that 400 ppm of C02 is about to be surprassed. Pretty amazing.

Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Wow. And you wonder why I have been (very reasonably) questioning your reading comprehension skills.

Please reread this post and respond:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2118933

I know you saw it, because you quoted it. It contains a quote and a link to the NASA paper which we are discussing. You have read the paper, right? You wouldn't be trolling without actually bothering to read what we are talking about, right?

Oh i see. I need to read the paper the press release describes. Please refer to previous non brainiac with social life comment.

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

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yo Reef & mr_f -- by all means continue your ping-pong match. But in the meantime, any chance one of you or someone else opining on how settled these presumably new techniques for measuring deep water are? Aren't the Argo sensors yet to be brought online? Is this perhaps why Nasa hasn't updated its website? And finally, what is the significance of the warming at the different levels?

Sorry . . . ltd. time to hang out here these days. If Jack were around I'd be admonished to do my own homework. But I do think these questions are a tad more relevant than the ping-pong match.

Sorry exile. You're witnessing what is colloquially called a "pissing contest".

The significance of warming of the ocean beyond 2000 metres depth is that it would account for a significant part of the heat missing from global warming aka the pause, hiatus whatever.

The Go-ship program was mentioned in Lake's paper and has the measuring of temperature data at these depths listed as a prime objective.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The amount of fossil fuel still in the ground vastly exceeds the amount we have extracted to date. Depending on what criteria one uses there is between 200-500 years worth of fossil fuel yet to be extracted. The notion of "peak oil" has been debunked several times over.

For many of us the question is not how much remaining fossil fuels there are, but whether it is prudent to burn them.


https://carbonbubble.info/

The simple truth is that matter is neither created nor destroyed. It just changes form. So the hydrogen and carbon we take out of the earth eventually must return to be recycled. Granted that it takes millions of years for nature to do it on its own. But there is nothing that says humans could not find a way to make it happen faster and thus create an endless supply. All it takes is some ingenuity, solar energy, pressure and time. So in effect oil and coal can be thought of as nature's solar batteries.

The whole point of this thread is that there are solutions that we haven't thought through. Or we have but haven't spent enough time and resources to make them workable. I'm all for having those discussions because i believe that is where the solutions will be found.

They can already make hydrocarbon fuels out of thin air. It's just very expensive to do so.

Holy Grail of Fuel? Scientists Make Synthetic Gas from Air and Water

Many of us feel that the world needs to commit much larger resources to developing economical, sustainable, non-carbon energy sources. But there is no reason for expending such efforts if it is unneeded. That is really the reason behind the arguments of this thread: Is business-as-usual going to work out well for us, or do we need to explore outside our comfort zone?

Arguing about whether or not the ocean can/does store heat (it can store a helluva lot) is senseless to me.

It is a very important question for those interested in calculating the rate of Earth's temperature increase, and thus how much time we may have left before, say, the Greenland icecap melts, or Miami floods, or the Sahel becomes too hot to live in.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

No response to the fact that they had to quantify the thermal expansion of the 700-2000m level to perform their calculation?

Perhaps it will be clearer if you read the paper the NASA press release describes.



To be clear: this states that 42% of the expansion (a measure of additional heat content) occurred in the 700-2000m layer.

DON'T BE AFRAID. THIS ISN'T A RICKROLL. THIS IS THE NASA PAPER.
https://e-nautia.com/clubargon/disk/...e%20Change.pdf

Or, to be even clearer: both papers show significant warming below 700m.

Perhaps you think that newhaul was trying to trick you by posting an article describing the paper rather than the actual paper. If so, good one newhaul.

Also, I think you may be confused about what "ad-homimen" means. A good example of ad-hominem is when someone says something like "and there you have it. Warmist pedantic's, along with the odd ad-hominem thrown in for good measure", rather than actually respond to the argument being made by the other person.

Here is a helpful wikipedia article that should help you understand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

And what do you think an increase in MSL of 1.5 inches over the next next century due to thermal expansion in the oceanic mid depth means? We should be worried, you reckon? How much should we spend over the next 85 years to impact the handful of molecules per million we can impact that might reduce that 1.5 inches by a fraction of a millimeter? One trillion? Two? Thirty?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

They were predicting we'd be out of oil by 1990 in 1975.

Now we have an estimated 100 years supply of oil for the whole planet under Texas....

And around three centuries more in natural gas under the Gulf.

[Delfin]

EPA's Methane Rule Won't Slow Warming, Will Increase CO2 | The Daily Caller

And for an exemplar of just how lunatic the AGW movement is the above with a click through to the supporting links pretty much says it all. Big increase on regulation that increases the cost of energy for zero gain. All in all, a perfect summary of the entire scam.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Delfin

... Big increase on regulation that increases the cost of energy for zero gain...

Not according to the EPA's analysis.
From table 1-2 (page 1-8) of the EPA’s “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Final Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,Reconstructed, and Modified Sources”

Total Monetized Benefits $290 million (2020) - $540 million (2025)
Total Costs $240 million (2020) - $360 million (2025)
Net Benefits $54 million - $180 million

Regulatory Impact Analysis ➥ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oila...6/nsps-ria.pdf

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The amount of fossil fuel still in the ground vastly exceeds the amount we have extracted to date. Depending on what criteria one uses there is between 200-500 years worth of fossil fuel yet to be extracted. The notion of "peak oil" has been debunked several times over.

The simple truth is that matter is neither created nor destroyed. It just changes form. So the hydrogen and carbon we take out of the earth eventually must return to be recycled. Granted that it takes millions of years for nature to do it on its own. But there is nothing that says humans could not find a way to make it happen faster and thus create an endless supply. All it takes is some ingenuity, solar energy, pressure and time. So in effect oil and coal can be thought of as nature's solar batteries.

I cannot fault that metaphor at all; it's very apt. Fossil fuels are indeed very efficient "concentrates" of energy from the sun. But these are "single use" batteries; and what we are starting to become aware of is that we are now sitting in a mess of discharged batteries, and like real single-use batteries, these discharged solar batteries are toxic and can poison their environs if not disposed of properly.

Unless we get some sort of new combustion process and post-combustion capture that vastly reduces the amount of CO2 being shot into the atmosphere, we have to weigh the benefits of continuing to burn fossil fuels versus the mess and possible harm. I'm doubtful that technology will ever be able to efficiently pull CO2 out of the air.

And we are steadily losing natural carbon sink through deforestation and other activities. Example:

Until recently, Canadian forests were a sink, according to the Canadian Forest Service. Living forests absorb carbon dioxide and, through photosynthesis, convert it to biomass. Forest soils also store large amounts of carbon in their organic layer. Deforestation alters the carbon cycle by eliminating trees and disturbing forest soils, releasing the carbon stored in both to the atmosphere. Through increased fires, insect infestation and harvesting, Canadian forests have now become a net source of greenhouse gas emissions.

More about carbon sinks in general here. Notable:

... [natural] sinks will probably never lead to a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide whilst carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current level.
...

It must be remembered, however, that [increased carbon uptake from land-based plants] will not continue indefinitely. The effect of carbon dioxide and nitrogen on plant growth is expected to saturate as other limiting factors, such as water availability, take over. Additionally, the amount of abandoned land on which re-growth can occur is finite.
...

...the overall role of land as a carbon sink is expected by most researchers to diminish over the next few decades. Indeed according to some predictions it could disappear altogether as early as 2050.

So yes we may have found more sources of fossil-fuel reserves sufficient for a few centuries... but we cannot keep burning it at the same or at an increasing rate, without increasing harm, perhaps irreparable.

The whole point of this thread is that there are solutions that we haven't thought through. Or we have but haven't spent enough time and resources to make them workable. I'm all for having those discussions because i believe that is where the solutions will be found.

Well, the real point of the original post and the linked article was "stop fussing about AGW; smart people will fix this". Like you I'm very interested in what technologies could give us cleaner, sustainable energy, or reduce the impact of dirtier energy. But as you can see in this thread, too many people would prefer to deny there's a problem than invest in developing solutions.

Arguing about whether or not the ocean can/does store heat (it can store a helluva lot) is senseless to me.

Whether or not the ocean is storing heat (of course it is) is a factor in determining whether the planet is actually heating up or not. The "hiatus" in air temperature increase and all that.