Ocean News

So?

I know.
You believe CO2 translates into global warming. I don't. Yeah, it's a green house gas a minor one.
and you think humans are responsible for all that CO2. I think the data says humans contributed 12 ppm of that 416ppm CO2

I think humans were blamed for global warming,by some pols in the UN and they created a panel to invent a methodology contrived to support their agenda. They (the pols) deleted any compromising statements in the agenda report, (IPCC) the scientist authors previously approved, but did not approve the deletions.
The only observations were of computer models specifically designed to support the hypothesis.

The annual increases in warmest years on record are trivial, a tenth of a degree. What is the confidence factor? I never see those. Warmer by a tenth of a degree, plus or minus half a degree (confidence factor) mysteriously missing.

Of course each year isn't warmer than previous years. it's ONE of the warmest years until they find a new tenth of a degree champion year.
Sure it's warming. It's a thousand year cycle, they either don't understand, or refuse to admit. As long as they are myopically committed to blaming CO2, they'll probably never understand climate cycles very well!

Snow capped mountains even in summer, you don't have to go very high before the air is freezing. That spin proposed to explain the CO2 band doesn't already trap all the radiation the earth recieves in that frequencies range, that more CO2 made the re-radiation move to higher colder altitudes was such malarky.
Re-radiation occurs at the interface of atmosphere and space.Higher doesn't exist except outside the atmosphere! It's already sub zero there at the interface, Space is even colder! You could say space sucks! Heat!

The greatest disaster, worst scenario, I can imagine to your POV, would be, if warming quit, started cooling, despite CO2 continuing to increase!
Imagine the lawsuits!

 

Regarding my posted chart of pre-industrial temperatures, I filtered search to show only images. Chose that one. It adequately made my point about vagueness. Didn't intend any data to be selected from it, just, obviously there are varied temperatures over a long time period before the machine age.
i don't read corrupt IPCC reports, knowing they were corrupted from the beginning of IPCC reports. Zero credibility.

 

Well lets hope this turns out to be wrong. But it shows how conservative and careful climate scientists are in their predictions. Which is dangerous in itself.

Because we need to prepare for the worst case, not for the "inconvenience that we will learn to live with". A 1% risk for 5°C that means extinction is unacceptable. But humans are prone to the gambling fallacies.

So from what I understand this predicts more clouds high up and less clouds in the lower strat. What would that mean for the ocean?

 

This has been discussed many times before, but perhaps certain memories don't function as well as they use to. This explanation digs into the science a bit, but you've assured us, Yob, that your scientific chops are up to snuff.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). [This was written in 2004. Since then the CO2 concentration level has continued rising to 416 ppm] The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere......

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.​

So far the deniers have offered no plausible natural explanation for the huge spike in atmospheric CO2 over the last ~200 years (as shown in the chart shown in post 3353) -- which is unprecedented in the last million years.

 

So let's explore whether higher levels of atmospheric CO2 can adversely heat up our planet?

First let's look back at post 3351 which notes that a number of the more recent computer models are showing that warming effect of a doubling of CO2 may be much greater than what has been assumed for the last 40 years -- from a previous estimated increase of temperatures from +3C to +5C. This is very bad news. An average temperature increase of 5C would be extremely disruptive to any and all.

Here's an article about an interesting new study of the cause of the earliest known mass extinction on Earth, from some 445 million years ago.

Familiar Culprit May Have Caused Mysterious Mass Extinction

Although it might sound mind-boggling, Dr. Finnegan argues that we’re releasing greenhouse gases at a rate that equals or exceeds these major extinction events.​

So even ancient historical records suggest that pumping vasts amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere can cause major problems for life.

 

Straw men central AGW arguments.
The fact it is warming does not prove humans cause it!
The fact that CO2 atmospheric concentration is higher does not prove CO2 is the cause of warming.
Yes, it's a minor greenhouse gas and humans produce a minor percent of it.
A couple of hundred articles discovered among thousands, guilty of mentioning global warming is not a 97% consensus.
Do I need to repost the entire fraud of how that talking point originated?

Neither CO2 nor human contributed CO2 are climate drivers.
That false assumption, CO2 drives climate, is the foundation, the basis for all AGW constipated thinking, was promulgated prior to any research, and all the efforts since have been seeking supportive evidence for the premade conclusion!
You are unwilling, can't abandon the assumption, nor can you prove it, only SPIN it!
SPIN is not credible!
Only credible to those already enamored of the false assumption, "All this carbon fuel we burn MUST be BAD!"

Why human CO2 does not change climate - edberry.com https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-not-change-climate/

 

All of your assertions have been well-documented to be scientifically incorrect.

There's a reason why you became a ship's captain and not a scientist.

 

The reason I chose my career is, it's a self determined path of study, global work, and advancement strictly on merit
Very few percent (less than 1%) of humans are psychologically fitted for the sacrifices required, I recognized I could!
A valuable huge benefit to the world, moving resources from where they are overly abundant, to where they are desperately needed!
Commute time from my sleeping cabin to my bridge (work station) very short, and the pay quite remunerative!
I have had deckhands with Phds, couldn't find a job in their chosen field. Didn't last long. Couldn't tolerate being away from friends, family, stores and restaurants-bars for months at a time. It wasn't because they suffered from intellectual boredom, unless continuously losing at chess is boring.

Ships are not all I am master of.

 

I happily congratulate you on your master mariner status. You did, indeed, provide society with a very valuable service. Your AGW denialism -- not so much. Why don't you stick with your competencies, and let those who are competent in other areas do their work without your becoming a nuisance underfoot?

 

Debate on controversial and revolutionary topics, potentially upsetting and overturning, for cultures and economies, is more than important. It's necessary! The most unscientific, radical, and unsupportable notion of AGW alarmists is "the science is settled"! No credible scientist could say that with a straight face, and retain credibility! Science has NEVER been or ever WILL be settled! Immediately, I was skeptical of the whole movement. The more I researched, the more convinced I am, certain it's a scam!

Why wouldn't you and your side, welcome thoughtful debate? Otherwise, you would only be preaching to the choir! Perhaps, your canned panic, fear tactics, have devolved into paranoia regarding refuting opinion?

 

"All of your assertions have been well-documented to be scientifically incorrect." says ImaginaryNumber

Really? You think?

Why human CO2 does not change climate - edberry.com https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-not-change-climate/

Recommend reading this paper, though you'll need some competence in higher mathematics to fully comprehend.

 

If you and EdBerry cannot get even the most basic elements of your argument correct, why should we countenance your conclusions?


This chart shows the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels for the past 60 years. As we can see, CO2 levels are neither decreasing nor flattening. In fact, they are increasing. And not just increasing, but their rate of increase is increasing!

You should be profoundly embarrassed by the low quality of the arguments you present.

 

Dr. Ed Berry states and explains current 410ppm CO2 is 95% natural and 5% human contribution.
How does your claim, chart, or ire refute that?
Even the corrupt IPCC you like citing, agrees humans only contribute 5% of CO2.
Ergo, humans are at most, only responsible for 5% of climate change, IF indeed CO2 drives climate, which is an unproven assumption by IPCC and alarmists and is disputed and controversial!

 

There is no SCIENTIFIC debate about whether AGW is happening. To say otherwise is to ignore the results of both the theory and the experimental evidence of ALL of the relevant scientific disciplines.

There continues to be SCIENTIFIC debate as to the speed and severity of AGW. Partly due to the many uncertainties of modeling such a complex phenomena, and partly because no one knows what humans will to due curb their use of CO2-producing fuels, etc.

Neither one of us can really be a part of those SCIENTIFIC debates, because we are not subject-matter experts. We can only listen in and learn from them.

There is POLITICAL debate about what to do about AGW. As members of democracies, we do have the privilege and the right to debate what we should be doing. However, if we wish to be an "informed citizenry" we should be quick to listen to the informed opinions of relevant subject-matter experts, such as scientists, economists, agronomists, sociologists, etc.

I fear the pseudo-experts that you are consulting are giving you bad advice. As has been said before, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts". But is seems, more and more, that people also feel entitled to the own "facts". This is not a happy development for a well-functioning society.

 

Speaking of your own "brand" of facts, AGW is proven? It's a FACT humans cause warming? Okay, demonstrate the scientific PROOF! Where is it?

All I see is speculations and assumptions offered as self evidentiary circular reasoning. That isn't science. It's obstinacy.