I skimmed enough of it to see it was a scare story to frighten some of the poor timid souls out there that are afraid of living a normal life.
I just do not think life would we worth living if i spent it worrying about all the different possible ways for us to die, or the world to end, or whatever.
Maybe when the new Utiliity bills begin to hit from the EPA coal regulations that will be exposed next week, it will make some of the timid souls realize it is going to cost them money, too, and not just the coal miners, to eiliminate carbon based energy.
Ernie
Climate Change - Continued
The video is about methane isn't it? Not Co2
I watched it all. I try to listen and understand both sides. Some videos are very persuasive like this one but I dont buy it. If we have already crossed the tipping point and all this "frozen" methane is already rising why arent we seeing much rise in temperature. Why have we seen a cooling effect over the last decade and a half.
On another note it is interestig how there have been mass extinctions and rises in temperatures without man. They atribute rises in temperatures from the CO2 generated from volcanic activity. But supposedly the CO2 now is higher now than it was then. Volcanic activity with the particulates it generates you usually get cooling effects.
CO2 is not a pollutant...it is an essential plant nutrient...and I just dont see a catastrophe like the video predicts.
the video is about how CO2 is supposedly warming the planet enough to relase all the frozen methane which is supposedly an even a more deadly greenhouse gas which is going to cause the 6th mass extinction on earth....
I just thought it was interesting how much Methane is sequestered in this gel-like form in the oceans. I watched another vid about some entity in Britain monitors Methane levels and has found that strangely... deserts are large contributors. They don't know why yet. Anyway, we had not talked about Methane so I posted. Not selling anything, here.
I think we should be more worried about cow burps though...
http://didyouknow.org/animals/cows/
When I read about detrimental effects of human activity, in general, I wonder what would have been the effects without the humans. There would have been wild animals, right? Haven't we lost a huge source of 'cowburps' because we killed all the bison and replaced them with corn? Of course, the corn comes with John Deere burps...
The methane which is frozen below the bottoms of the ocean has been slowly melting enough to release a little bit of it all along. I first read about that 30 or more years ago, But, just think how much actual heat it will take to warm ALL of the ocean water to the point it warms the bottom of it enough to have much effect on the methane which is contained similar to the Permafrost in the Arctic. The ocean water at that depth is probably only a few degrees about freezing now.
There is no doubt there are a lot of potentially dangerous things that can happen, but since we do not have any way of knowing just which ones are going to happen first, I do not see the logic in worrying about it or bankrupting our economy until we are sure which one is going to be IT.
Ernie
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/extremism-trumps-climate-facts/2014/06/20/id/578286/
"There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 percent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere," he states. "How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions."
Moore also dives into several points about the history of Earth's CO2 levels in regard to plant and human life. He says these points are mostly ignored by Greenpeace members and an environmental movement that's become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one."
"If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture," he notes, imaging a hypothetical scenario in which the globe warms but it doesn't result in a humanitarian disaster.
He wrote that an increase in CO2 could, in theory, even be beneficial to plant life on Earth, however unlikely.
"The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 percent increase in growth."
I dodnt agree with everything stated but there certainly have been a lot of mistakes made by scientists not only representing past climate but predicting future climate:
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/Christopher-Booker-climate-change-data-fabricated/2014/06/23/id/578690/?promo_code=168DF-1&utm_source=168DFThe_Rush_Limbaugh_Show&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
"Global warming data has been manipulated to grossly misrepresent warming trends, and scientists have suppressed climate records indicating that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record in the United States, says U.K. journalist Christopher Booker.
"When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data," Booker, author of "The Real Global Warming Disaster," wrote in a column for The Sunday Telegraph of London.
Booker said that while he found evidence of fiddled climate figures while writing his book seven years ago, Steven Goddard's blog "Real Science" has uncovered another example of it when looking at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's graph of U.S. surface temperatures.
The group, Goddard claims, has been "adjusting" its records by replacing real temperatures with data "fabricated" by computer models. The effect has been to make earlier periods seem cooler, while more recent temperatures have been inaccurately presented as higher to give the impression that the Earth has been warming much more than the actual data suggests.
Using actual temperatures, graphs indicate that the United States has been cooling since the '30s, Goddard has shown, according to Booker, even though the official graphs are showing that the the Earth has been warming at a rate equal to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
"When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous 'hockey stick' graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years," Booker wrote.
"Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology."
Climate scientists want to predict years and decades into the future. But most scientists cant even predict regular and usual weather phenomenons like El Niño with much confidence. Why havent the scientists themselves admitted this from the begining? They talk catastrophe when they have no clue.
On another note why havent the mainstream press and major scientists mentioned the many potential positive benefits of global climate change. An objective scientist
would at least look at that....however the focus has been on the problems only.
http://www.croplife.com/management/economist-el-nino-could-benefit-u-s-agriculture/
A Kansas State University senior agricultural economist says there’s a 70% chance an El Niño will arrive this fall — and that’s good news for the U.S.
Jay O’Neil, an instructor and specialist at the university’s International Grains Program, says what happens with El Niño will affect worldwide crop production. El Niño, which is the warming of the sea temperatures off the coast of Peru, is expected to affect crops during September, October and November.
“El Niño is generally favorable to crop production in the United States because it brings extra rain and moisture into the core crop-growing areas,” O’Neil said. “We’re just coming out of a four-year drought cycle in the United States and we’d like to get back to what we call trend-line yields and big crop production so there’s plenty for everybody.”
Better crop production in the U.S. would also mean lower food prices. However, other countries would experience harsher growing conditions because of El Niño. O’Neil says South America is expected to be dryer than usual, which would have an impact on the global food market.
“If South America goes dry, that would affect next year’s production worldwide,” O’Neil said.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/22/report-global-warming-pause-could-last-another-10-years/
Very very interesting article!
Interesting scientists are saying now we have been in a global warming pause since the 1990's. Not exactly what we have been told. What is very interesting is that the satellites have not detected any warming since 1979! Of course we all know satellites are very archaic as well as political and should not be trusted. Lol!
I don’t know about you but I'm just not convinced about CO2 levels having much impact on earths temperatures at their current concentrations.
All the 30 plus theories as to why the global warming has supposedly stopped all sound hard to believe too.
My guess is that all the "normal variation" in climate is on a "down" trend lately, masking the gradual "up" trend caused by CO2.
Wasn't "normal variation" used as an excuse-all by climate change doubters when temperatures were going up?
When the natural variation levels off or rises, we'll see the masked anthropogenic trend more clearly.
Maybe I'm just listening for it more carefully, but I keep hearing "hottest", "coldest", driest", latest" year ever.
Well, even the doubters will know for sure after it's way too late.
I'm still with the 95% of scientists.
P.S. I forget whether I said this in the past: I don't know what to do either, in the near term, other than "invent new carbon-capture technologies and energy-production technologies that are cheap enough that China would adopt them".
Just listened to an interesting TED talk of Allan Savory, who asserts that desertification is caused by bad management of grazing animals. He is correcting it by recommending large herds that mimic natural wildlife, being moved, not staying in one area for a long period. And says that correcting desertificaton would have a major effect on climate, putting carbon back in the soil..
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change
The timed moving of grazing animals idea is one I first read about in Omnivore's Dilemma, Joel Salatins organic farm
I've seen that talk and I thought he made a good case.
RickCorey_WA,
Every year somewhere it is the ""hottest", "coldest", driest", latest" year ever." Tying these localized weather events to climate change has been an effective way to scare people but are completely unrelated. There has always been extreme weather. And no it isn't increasing.
The 95% of scientists are baffled that their theories are not panning out and they are all coming up with new theories as to why their theories aren't working. It is much more than natural variation. In fact I think it would be wiser to focus less on "climate change" and study more the "theory change" these scientists are constantly coming up with.
I mean I am a doctored scientists myself...a critical thinker...and I put trust in science with repeatable experimental results with proper statistical analysis and experimental design...
However only a fool would put their trust in scientists that constantly change their theories...and when none of their theories turn out to be correct...the experiment is time...and time hasn't proved any of their theories....they have all been wrong. I will not put my faith in wrong.
>> There has always been extreme weather. And no it isn't increasing.
>> However only a fool would put their trust in scientists that constantly change their theories.
I disagree, both about the frequency of local extremes and the wisdom of assuming any science where theories change is wrong or deceitful. Any new science has rapidly-changing theories and global climatology is an example.
Every science's theories change, even Newtonian mechanics. Obviously a brand-new science about something as complex as climate (including hydrology, geochemistry, ecology, and atmospheric dynamics outside the ranges previously observed is going to take decades just to FIND all the relevant factors, let alone quantize their influences.
Only people with a predetermined political agenda would put any trust in people claiming to KNOW that something will NOT be harmless when even they admit that the science for proving it does not exist yet.
Only criminally reckless people would dismiss without evidence the conclusions of 95% of scientists in a field, even a young field.
>> The 95% of scientists are baffled that their theories are not panning out and they are all coming up with new theories as to why their theories aren't working.
No, they understand each new discovery and realize that they are inventing a new field of science. One person said that they keep finding new factors, some of which mitigate the original, simple, straight-forward models that predicted rapid disaster. He pointed out that we are just as likely to discover other new factors that will reveal it has been too late for decades, or that a 3-degree C change will be much WORSE than projected. When we don't know, we DON'T know.
And reality is neither conservative nor progressive: maybe the plate glass window will remain un-cracked no matter how many bricks we throw through it, or maybe those bricks will keep bouncing off. Maybe crops and crop pests and crop pathogens won't be affected much by rainfall and temperature changes. Maybe the horse WILL sing.
To say "they can't be SURE of even the limited claims they are now making" might be true, but someone playing Russian Roulette is 83% sure that the next pull of the trigger won't blow his brains out. Does that make Russian Roulette prudent or wise?
It may be that every post in these threads since the first few have been wasted effort, since none of us see much merit in the "evidence" or arguments brought up by the other side.
I looked at the Keeling Curve in the 1980s and knew that the burden of proof that we AREN'T jumping off a cliff was on anyone who can even imagine that changing the atmosphere that much is unlikely to have a MAJOR effect.
And if we talk about "going on as before" with the Keeling curve climbing higher and higher, while political partisans preach "Don't Worry, Be Happy", the only reasonable debate can be over how long it will be before the climate breaks into very new patterns, outside anything the ecosystem has adapted to in hundreds of thousands of years.
I continue to be amazed and dumbfounded that otherwise reasonable people say with a straight face that we should not be worried until after the changes are so far advanced that not even Fox News can deny them.
I understand the point of view of religious fundamentalists who say "God will save us from ourselves", I just don't agree we can or should rely on that. From the religious viewpoint, WE have a responsibility to be responsible stewards.
I think that some of the climate change deniers are actually political fundamentalists driven by a faith that "Capitalism will save us" from our own destruction of our ecosystem. From that pure-money viewpoint, we should hedge our bets against the likelihood of severe damage to agriculture everywhere and, eventually, habitability of the Tropics.
Excellent post, Rick.
http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2014/sep/04/special-report-as-seas-rise-a-slow-motion-disaster-gnaws-at-us-shores/
The article begins: WALLOPS ISLAND Virginia (Reuters) - Missions flown from the NASA base here have documented some of the most dramatic evidence of a warming planet over the past 20 years: the melting of polar ice, a force contributing to a global rise in ocean levels.
Just sayin'...
Did you know that the amount of sea ice in Antarctica is at record levels right now and has made a new record in each of the last 3 years? Also the amount of sea ice in the Arctic has rebounded since 2012? How about that tornadoes and hurricanes are at record lows?
Did you know that for 18 years earths temperatures have not increased? These are facts.
95% of climate scientists predicted that as the concentration of CO2 increased, global temperatures would increase, and that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice would decrease....not increase.
This is not an adjustment of a theory like in other scientific disciplines. It is evidence, data if you will that disproves the initial theory.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/03/govt-scientists-antarctic-sea-ice-is-growing-because-of-global-warming/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16372-climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling
RickCorey_WA said: " I disagree, both about the frequency of local extremes and the wisdom of assuming any science where theories change is wrong or deceitful. Any new science has rapidly-changing theories and global climatology is an example.
Every science's theories change, even Newtonian mechanics. Obviously a brand-new science about something as complex as climate (including hydrology, geochemistry, ecology, and atmospheric dynamics outside the ranges previously observed is going to take decades just to FIND all the relevant factors, let alone quantize their influences."
DrObarrs comments: I do agree science is always changing and evolving. New discoveries are made all the time. But climate scientists have been talking and predicting as if their theory was set in stone. As if their science was not a brand new science. Instead of saying this might or might not happen they have been talking as if they can predict the future and they have been completely wrong. Brand new science requires extra skepticism in my mind. Most science slowly evolves with new discoveries making slight tweaks. In climate science the theory has been completely turned upside down. Obviously CO2 is not having the effect on global temperatures as was predicted...at least at the concentrations we are seeing so far...and many scientists are now realizing this and stating this. Weather extremes are not more frequent right now, rather their reporting of them make it seem so.
RickCorey_WA said: "Only people with a predetermined political agenda would put any trust in people claiming to KNOW that something will NOT be harmless when even they admit that the science for proving it does not exist yet.
Only criminally reckless people would dismiss without evidence the conclusions of 95% of scientists in a field, even a young field."
DrObarr says: I think the political agenda is just as powerful and guilty on both sides. I don't really buy into either argument. I am just looking at this as a scientist. 95% of scientists once said that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth was flat. 95% of scientists can be wrong and are frequently wrong, especially in a young field as this which receives almost all of their funding from governments and beaurocrats with predetermined political agendas. In science one must prove with evidence, experimentation and data the validity of a theory. "One does not need to dismiss a theory without evidence"...well then one should not put faith in a theory without evidence or some sort of proof. You sort of prove my whole point with your comments...why put so much trust and faith in these 95% of scientists that still don't have a clue and are figuring things out?
RickCorey_WA said:"No, they understand each new discovery and realize that they are inventing a new field of science....When we don't know, we DON'T know. And reality is neither conservative nor progressive"
DrObarr says: Inventing they are! I agree with you that we just don't know. We don't know so its hard to decide what to do when we just don't know! I go for reality any day over false predictions!
RickCorey_WA said: "I continue to be amazed and dumbfounded that otherwise reasonable people say with a straight face that we should not be worried until after the changes are so far advanced that not even Fox News can deny them."
DrObarr says: I continue to be amazed and dumbfounded that otherwise reasonable people say with a straight face that we should be worried when the data suggests that the theories proposed are incorrect. I think reasonable people should only worry when it is merited. As far as religious folks or capitalists points of view I don't think they matter here. Lets just stick to the science. Fear and worry is not part of science...that's part of politics. And when a climate scientists starts talking fear and worry...if we don't do something now!!!! That's when I know he or she is not a good scientist. That's when I am not interested in whatever else they have to say. Because they are biased not by the evidence, but on their politics.
This idea that there is this tipping point and once reached there is no return, and humanity is doomed...is also a farce. Things can go back and forth and always have and will continue to do so with or without human activity. Equilibrium is a scientific principle that has been proven over and over.
Now some politics...I am not worried about the future. I am optimistic! Nobody knows what is going to happen. But I am hopeful that we can adjust and adapt to whatever climate changes we see or changes we don't see. If the ocean rises we can move inland. If it gets warmer we can move north. This whole idea of apocalypse is not scientific at all. Rising temperatures if they ever do happen could be very beneficial.
Quote from greenhouse_gal :
http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2014/sep/04/special-report-as-seas-rise-a-slow-motion-disaster-gnaws-at-us-shores/
The article begins: WALLOPS ISLAND Virginia (Reuters) - Missions flown from the NASA base here have documented some of the most dramatic evidence of a warming planet over the past 20 years: the melting of polar ice, a force contributing to a global rise in ocean levels.
Just sayin'...
That was a good article....I especially liked the discussion on the impacts of subsidence:
"In many places, including much of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, an additional factor makes the problem worse: The land is sinking. This process, known as subsidence, is due in part to inexorable geological shifts. But another major cause is the extraction of water from underground reservoirs for industrial and public water supplies. As aquifers are drained, the land above them drops, a process that can be slowed by reducing withdrawals."
Also: "Thornton, the county supervisor, testified that local residents feared for their jobs. In a recent interview, Thornton, who owns a campground in Chincoteague, said she thinks the federal government is using climate change as a ploy in a “long-term plan to get everyone away from the coastline.”
She blames the government, not rising sea levels, for the beach’s flooding problems. The refuge hasn’t taken steps to protect the shoreline, such as replenishing the beach with sand, she said. “There’s going to be nothing left to protect us,” she said."
Beach erosion has always been a problem wherever there is coastline regardless of if the sea rises or falls.
>> Did you know that the amount of sea ice in Antarctica is at record levels right now
Large short-term variations. Exactly the same argument that climate change deniers used to use to explain temperature increases and record ice lows.
>> 95% of climate scientists predicted that as the concentration of CO2 increased, global temperatures would increase, and that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice would decrease...not increase.
Long term changes averaged over the whole globe and some decades.
>> Brand new science requires extra skepticism in my mind.
OK. We can't reliably predict the effect of making a HUGE change in the atmosphere, so we should be extra-cautious until that science matures so much that it can say reliably:"Sure you can keep throwing that 9 billion ton brick through the plate glass window and expect no damage".
>> Brand new science requires extra skepticism in my mind.
Also, large or surprising claims require extra-strong evidence.
Until we reliably understand mechanisms that will protect against dumping NINE BILLION TONS of CO2 into the air EVERY YEAR, skepticism and prudence demand that we take protective action against the obvious threat.
The burden of proof is on the people who have a crazy notion that you can just continuously stomp on the atmosphere like Godzilla and expect no effect.
And even if you think 9 gigatons is negligible, that's 9 gigatons every year until we wise up. How about 90 gigatons? 900 gigatons? One thing I don't think anyone can deny is that if we keep doing what we are doing for enough decades, eventually the consequences will be undeniable and disastrous.
My guess is that most climate deniers have made the connection in their minds "If A is true, there would have to be more government regulations and industry won't be allowed to pollute for free. Therefore, A must be false."
>> which receives almost all of their funding from governments and beaurocrats with predetermined political agendas.
At least some politicians have human survival SOMEWHERE on their agenda. Other politicans seem to think exactly like most industrial managers: what is good for MY quarterl;y profits is good for the world."
>> well then one should not put faith in a theory without evidence or some sort of proof. You sort of prove my whole point with your comments...why put so much trust and faith in these 95% of scientists that still don't have a clue and are figuring things out?
No, the burden of proof is on those urging us to keep playing Russian roulette becuase it is not yet proven that the very next bullet will kill us.
>> I think reasonable people should only worry when it is merited. ... Fear and worry is not part of science...that's part of politics. And when a climate scientists starts talking fear and worry... That's when I know he or she is not a good scientist. That's when I am not interested in whatever else they have to say.
That point, I have to agree with. Climate scientists didn't stress how uncertain their theories were, at first, and newspapers and other hot-air-vendors jumped straight to pictures of NYC under water, with reportage like "this WILL happen". The damage done to climatology's credibility may not recover until we have gross and obvious crop failures and whatever else climate chnage brings.
Of course, if the long shot does come through and prayers to protect ourselves from ourselves are answered (the most plauisible mechanism I can think of for "Ignore those gigatons of CO2 in the air, nothing to see here"), and some unforeseen mechanism DOES protect us from gross stupidity, climate science will continue to be held in disrepute by people who would not have wanted a warning that a huge iceberg was on a collision course with the Tutanic.
On the other hand, YES, when a scientist leaves off the three pages of caveats and cautions and uncertainties in his claims, he IS making all of science vulnerable to being debunked by anyone who wants the answer to come out a certain way.
>> This idea that there is this tipping point and once reached there is no return, and humanity is doomed...is also a farce.
No and maybe. Looking at the climate record, major changes like Ice Ages often have very abrupt tipping points. And when the change is unprecedented, no one has any idea what is or is not to be expected. To say "there IS a tipping point" when you can't point to specific mechanisms that are highly probable, is bad science. To say "only gradual, reversible chnages will ever happen" is bad science and also factually false, since abrupt, positive-feedback chnages have been seen in the fossile reocrd.
I often say the burden of proof is on those who look at the Keeling Curve and don't see red flags. One counter-argument would be that even poor ideas about redcuing the CO2 in the atmsphpere are very expensive and hard to enforce gloablly. Usually public policy DOES need strong proof before spending huge amounts of money or putting a crimp in industry.
But our grandchildren will not be impressed with argument if it comes to crop failures and global famine.
If most of the population in the tropics have to "move north" to fed themselves, I'm not optimistic that can happen without big, medium and small wars. If changing climate chnages patterns of plant disease and pests and temperate zones are struggling to adapt faster than pests adapt, and our food prices are soaring, and most of the population of the tropics is in worse shape, I'm not optimistic at all.
>> Things can go back and forth and always have and will continue to do so with or without human activity. Equilibrium is a scientific principle that has been proven over and over.
No. Some things happen reversibly and others happen and can't go backward. Combine a storng acid and a strong base - then try to reverse that equilibrium. Yes, there is an equilibrium: 99.999% neutralization and 0.001% un-neutralized. How do you convert NaCl back to NaOH and HCL through reversible equilibrium?
The Ice Ages were a flip in one direction, and the speculation that unlimited amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere WON'T trip any similar positive feedbacks with negative consequences is just an unsupproted assertion.
The most scary new comment I've heard lately was someone explaining that climatologists DO keep finding new mechansims when they test a model. Let's say on average they find one major new factor every two years. Maybe the liklihood of each new factor being strongly destabilizing is only 5%. In 20 years, that's 40% (0.95^10, I think). Russian roulette, but for bigger odds ...
>> If the ocean rises we can move inland. If it gets warmer we can move north. This whole idea of apocalypse is not scientific at all.
I probably just don't understand why anyone brings this kind of argument up. Are you saying thqt government should never take an action unless the alternative is literal depopulation of the ENTIRE planet? Any disaster less than that is preferable to regulations or taxes? I really don;t understand. Changes that are 10 or 100 times LESS disruptive than that seem to me like the reason we HAVE governments - to protect against disasters much worse than losing wars.
>> I think reasonable people should only worry when it is merited.
Actually, I do agree with that. If our government ever really considers protective measures with any yardstick other than the partisan test "government = bad", we WILL have to balance risk against cost. But as with odds in a hand of poker or playing the stock market, if the downside of the bet is more severe, the bet needs more strongly to be hedged. Smart, small steps to hedge against disaster should be taken even before the proof is so strong that willful disbelief can't ignore it.
http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/index/269356/speedreads-nasa-discovers-that-earths-deep-ocean-hasnt-warmed-since-2005
Another article indicating that things are NOT warming.
I read it and the article does NOT indicate that "things are NOT warming".
Are you sure you want to cite that as evidence on your side?
As the authors remark:
- - - "the study's findings "do not throw suspicion on climate change itself."
- - - " the top half of the ocean has continued to become warmer."
I thought that everyone knew that the deep oceans will be the very last places on earth to show the effects of climate change and AGW. It turns over VERY slowly.
The point of the article seems to be refining how ocean temperature profiles affect sea level rise, and the answer is that the deep ocean does not contribute much yet.
quote:
"John Willis, a scientist at the laboratory and co-author of the study, was quick to clarify that the study's findings "do not throw suspicion on climate change itself." The scientists noted that while the temperature of the abyss hasn't risen, greenhouse gases are still accumulating in the atmosphere. And Felix Landerer, who is also a scientist at the laboratory and co-author of the study, added that while the ocean's abyss wasn't warming, the top half of the ocean has continued to become warmer."
The abyssal depths of the ocean turn over VERY slowly. The main mechanism is the thermo-haline circulation where water approaches the poles, chills and becomes saltier when ice freezes out, and sinks into the depths.
I'll try to document my recollection that the typical speed with which the deep ocean turns over is around 300 years. If that is true, we would expect to see the effect of global warming THERE around 300 years after we get it on the Earth's surface and atmosphere and ocean surface.
If "300 years" is right, the deep ocean reflects the effects of global warming from industrial pollution in the year 1714. Small surprise to anyone it is too small to measure.
If we waited until the effects show up in the deep ocean, we wouldn't do anything until hundreds of years after the effects were severe on land and in the atmosphere.
300 years conservative or around right for surface influences starting to reach the depths. The "round trip" for thermo-haline circulation takes around 1,000 years.
NOAA says 1,000 years for the round trip, so call it 500 years for surface waters to reach the deeps:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/05conveyor2.html
It is estimated that it can take 1,000 years for a "parcel" of water to complete the journey along the global conveyor belt.
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) says that thermo-haline circulation
"brings down the heat on a time scale of ~1000 years."
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html
BTW, the "down-welling" might only occur in the North Atlantic, not the North Pacific (and I think maybe not at the South Pole).
No matter how you look at it, saying that global warming isn't occurring because the ocean deeps haven't warmed up yet is about like saying that your car's heater doesn't work because it doesn't keep your living room warm.
==================
A related but separate issue:
If climate change does slow down the thermo-haline circulation, that would cause the North Atlantic to cool relative to average warming elsewhere:
"Global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localised cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region.[1][2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219153611.htm
University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign:
[2] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.5994&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences,Hamburg University, Hamburg, Germany
International Max Planck ResearchSchool of Earth System Modelling,Hamburg, Germany
Institute forEnvironmental Studies,Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,The Netherlands
Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Several climate scientists have been saying for years that the reason why we haven't seen warming in the last 15 years is because heat may be trapped deep into the oceans as a sink for heat trapping. This theory has been disproven.
Wow, I never heard that theory.
I wonder how they thought deep heat transfer would occur, since the T-H circulation is well know to be very slow.
I recall (some decades ago?) when they added heat accumulation in the shallow surface waters to the models. They've been tracking that surface temperature change for some years or decades, I think by satellite.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VDcAjMnD_qD
Here is a better more complete article directly from NASA.
One thing they also note is that the warming on the upper part of the ocean is minor and does not account for the supposed heat that earth should be accumulating.
One thing is for sure...climate scientists have no clue why there has been no warming in the atmosphere...and not only is their theory about heating due to current CO2 levels flawed, so are their theories trying to explain where their missing heat is at!
My guess is that with the slight increases in temperatures we saw last century, that triggered more evapotranspiration, which increases humidity and cloud formation which causes more light and heat to be reflected into space and cools the earth. Rising temperatures essentially create conditions to counteract a further increase in heat regardless of CO2 level.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-theory-may-help-explain-global-warming-pause/
Heres one of the theories that oceans have been holding heat.
Our genius IT department blocked the website your first link led to ... I was able to open this:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-338&rn=news.xml&rst=4321
I was wondering how they could use satellites to "measure" deep-ocean temperatures. In my mind, the following does not "measure" deep temps, it makes a conclusion based on some measurements and deductions with implicit assumptions.
"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.
The remainder was essentially zero"
Also, the study was all about sea level.
Obviously SOME scientists thought it was plausible that significant heat could migrate into the deep ocean despite the fact that exchange of seawater only occurs over 1,000 year timescales, and the existence of a thermocline suggests strongly that heat doesn't just diffuse very deep significantly by conduction or convection.
I guess you disproved my belief that it's kind of dumb to think the deep ocean COULD be absorbing much heat on a scale of years instead of millennia. IF the study was done to look for deep-sea temperature changes, it must have been plausible to SOMEONE.
On the other hand, maybe the study was done to dis[rove something about sea level rise, but nothing gets written up in newspapers and magazines unless the press release mentions "global warming".
I notice that every article you point to was written by someone who stresses that the results do NOT indicate that global warming isn't real, they just can't explain why the models don't predict everything yet.
Duhh. New science, complicated subject, planet shifting from old weather and climate patterns into never-before-seen patterns, and anyone is surprised that things happen that aren't predicted ahead of time? That's what I don;t understand.
We already know there are random variations.
We already know there are multiple oscillations like El Nino/ Nina or this THC-related AMOC.
I wish I could find again some site that talked about ALL the semi-periodic weather "cycles" that have been known or claimed or speculated about for decades.
The the upward trend levels or deeps briefly, and that proves the sky isn't falling?
The difference between a trend and a straight line is that a trend wnaders around.
If the "pause" lasts several decades, then I'll take note of it. It might even mean that it won;t be a crises until we reach (for example) 500 ppm instead of 400 ppm. Big whoop. That's like saying THIS round of Russian Roulette didn;t kill me, so it's safe.
If they find a mechanism that EXPLAINS how you can increase atmospheric insulation without increasing steady-state temps, and somehow prove those changes are NOT going to bollix up aspects of weather and climate that our crops depend on, THEN I'll say that continuing to play Russian Roulette with our only habitat isn't as insanely dangerous as I thought. But for anyone to agree with that, their faith in science knowing more than it can know is amazingly strong!
Whatever.
RickCorey_WA,
Scientists have predicted that as the CO2 concentration increased, the temperatures on earth would increase proportionately with the increase in CO2. CO2 has risen, but the temperatures have ceased to increase. Scientists are trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't increasing. Scientists haven't been able to explain why the temperatures have ceased to rise. In fact, CO2 has been rising for a few hundred years, but we have not seen a gradual warming that corresponds with that increase in CO2 either. It is only when you seek out certain periods of time...such as the 1980's to the year 2000, for example, where you see trends of warming with increased CO2. There have also been many many periods of cooling, as CO2 has increased. Scientists still aren't sure what has caused some of the warming events. Scientists know that other factors can also regulate or cause warming.
The articles I am trying to share show what IS happening through actual measurements. It is very hard to have a discussion of what may happen in the future, especially when 99% of scientists have been unable to successfully predict it...and I doubt they can continue to accurately predict it. You believe we are headed on a path of catastrophe...that at some PPM concentration of CO2 it will be all over and the world ends! I disagree with that whole premise.
One thing to remember is that CO2 from the combustion of oil and gas deposits isn't infinite. It is finite. Much of the oil and gas may never be extracted because of its costs to do so, or location etc. But more importantly, other sources of energy will take their place. Eventually, alternative technology will improve and costs will decrease compared to fossil fuels. I would guess in 100 years or less, a carbon dominated energy system may be obsolete which would significantly decrease carbon emissions.
My take is that there are too many other factors that regulate temperatures here on earth. That CO2's impact is likely minimal based on past and current observations. That other more important factors control temperatures. I think that the earth can handle a wide range of CO2 concentrations without catastrophe as we have seen so far.
You are sure the sky IS falling...that we ARE playing Russian Roulette, that it IS a ticking time bomb and I don't. I think the earth is far more flexible than that.
Time will only tell.
>> Scientists have predicted that as the CO2 concentration increased, the temperatures on earth would increase proportionately with the increase in CO2
Really? I never heard anyone ever claim "proportionately with the increase in CO2", since it was obvious back in the '80s that it was not a linear correlation, and pretty obviously not any simple correlation, since "the climate" is a hugely complex system. That sounds like a Fox-"News"-caliber misstatement of what any reputable scientist would say.
>> You believe we are headed on a path of catastrophe...that at some PPM concentration of CO2 it will be all over and the world ends! I disagree with that whole premise.
I know that I sometimes describe a worst-case scenario. I think that is less exaggerated a position than "let's not do anythingt until decades after it's too late".
More like: I think that any risk of damaging something that our entire ecosystem and agriculture totally depends on is an unwise risk.
That's why I use the example of Russian Roulette. It's a case where everyone knows it is dumb to play Russian Roulette. Scientists can't prove that playing Russian Roulette 2-3 times WILL kill you, so "the science is still out".
That illustrates why "proving" exactly what effect AGW will have on climate in the near, middle and long terms before taking any action is as unwise as playing Russian Roulette until you hear the bang.
"What to do about it", and "what CAN be done that is affordable" are such hard questions that it's understandable that we mostly talk past each other.
I think it is extremely likely that at some concentrations of CO2, climate WILL change substantially and affect crop production seriously. Exactly as with Russian Roulette, it's not clear how long we can keep playing the game of dumping gigatons - GIGAtons - of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR.
It probably is a big deal, an argument-concluder, that I looked at the Keeling curve in the 1980s and concluded that it would HAVE TO have a major affect on atmospheric dynamics (hence climate) ... at some point. It's as obvious to me as a brick through a plate glass window WILL do "something" to the window, at some point.
Maybe there is no point in arguing with people who can look at that curve and assume it will have little discernible effect.
The curve looks to me exactly like every exponential-growth-curve looks, until it hits the point where all the cells die.
The specific modeling details are interesting, but they keep finding large new factors to add into the models. That process will surely go on for decades at least. The odds are very good that we will DISCOVER the way it affects the climate before we can prove/predict it.
So "wait for the science to fully mature" isn't a very practical guide to action.
That is "waiting to hear the boom".
Neuroanatomists are developing ever more detailed brain maps, but I would not wait for their new science to fully mature before deciding that I don't want to risk a bullet through my brain.
I read one article that made the point that every crop variety and agricultural practice is "tuned" to the climate/weather/insect/pathogen environment. Apparently potato varieties are different every 50 miles you go North or South, to optimize production in different regions.
Even climate change that is too slight to be proven to those who are highly motivated to disagree or "deny" would be more than is caused by a 50 mile shift North or South! If the change is rapid, that author was pretty sure that insects and plant pathogens would adapt much faster than plants or farmers. He convinced me.
Since we are already heading for a conflict between agricultural productivity and world population, I think that "seriously" could be as serious as multiple small or large wars. Compared to (for example) Crimea and ISIS/ISIL, "regional famines" seem quite likely to cause wars.
Others may find that hard to believe. Maybe social science has not yet "proved" to their satisfaction that severe hardships caused by resource scarcity tend to cause wars. Whatever. Any statement other than mathematical statements can always be pooh-poohed by saying "that isn't fully PROVEN". An argument form that can prove ANYthing is not a valid argument form.
I imagine that we CAN agree that no obvious, affordable options have been found yet.
Natural gas power plants COULD pollute less than coal or oil. I wish we would invest in more of them, and burn less coal. I wish Red China would do the same, but I know they won't until it's an economical option for them.
Nuclear and (in a few cases) solar or wind power might help reduce CO2 pollution from electric power generation if the prices were right.
Transportation power (gasoline or natural gas) seems likely to keep emitting CO2 until we can generate very clean electrical power AND store it efficiently in portable batteries.
I think that the obvious dangers argue for strong attempts to find other options, even though we don;t know whether we have years, decades or 100 years. Solving the problem might take 100 years!
By the time crops fail and (later) waters rise significantly it will probably be much too late, and the problem will get MUCH worse and much harder to solve.
When Napoleon ordered trees planted beside the roads his troops would march on (to give them shade), his advisers told him that the trees would take decades to mature. "I know" he said. "That's why we have to start right now".
Guys, I know absolutely nothing about the science of all this discussion, but is the earth as a whole cooling or warming? The reason I ask this is because North America seems to be cooling, and certainly here in Mississippi, after last year's winter and now this year's fall (22 F this AM and four more nights around 20 F), we sure are colder than normal.
The earth has neither been warming nor cooling in the last 17 years but holding steady.
Some places like parts of North America and Antarctica have been cooling and other parts have been warming. Antarctica is growing in size (ice sheets) and in 2013 recorded its coldest temperature ever. Some believe this is due to the hole in the ozone layer...ozone is a greenhouse gas and since it has been missing in parts of the Southern hemisphere this has increased cooling. http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/12/10/antarctica-cold-record/3950019/
Prior to the 2000's earths temperatures were increasing beginning in the 1980's but that followed severe cooling in the 1970's.
Most scientists believe that global warming is happening but cant seem to fully explain why earths temperatures are holding steady even though CO2 is increasing.
There are numerous theories as to why the warming has stopped. Many climate scientists claim that these cooling events were or could be expected and are just blips on the radar and in reality the warming hasn't stopped. For me this has just discredits their theories as well as all their claims of doom and gloom and political activity many are engaged in.
Have you heard one scientist say anything good could result from global warming?
Well probably more than you wanted to know.
I like your message, drobarr (I assume you are a doc.?).
Ken, aka drdawg
Ken,
Yes I have a Ph.D. in Agronomy from Texas A&M(2005).
John
One of our rivals then. I'm a fan of Mississippi State University and in fact, my back yard boundary is shared with MSU's Vet School. Did you know that originally MSU was Mississippi A & M? Even our colors are identical. I have little Ag. background though. I have a DDS (retired after 42 years). Thus my "handle" drdawg.
Ken