Is the ocean broken?

Lake Nyos disaster - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
Maybe tapping CO2 underground isn't the best solution.
"On 21 August 1986, a limnic eruption at Lake Nyos in northwestern Cameroon killed 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock.[1]"
"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources) of carbon dioxide (CO
2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph) and then, being heavier than air, descended onto nearby villages, displacing all the air and suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2019, the United States emitted 5.1 billion metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 33.1 billion metric tons."
How much carbon dioxide does the United States and the World emit each year from energy sources? https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-united-states-and-world-emit-each-year-energy-sources?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
Compared to a year of CO2 released by the US energy industry, that's a lot of CO2 in a day for a tiny region. A horrible horrible disaster.

-Will

 

Of course!
Are you paying your banana tax?

 

Only the bananas pay.

 

Climate change meant Hurricane Sandy caused $8 billion more damage

• Rising sea levels, linked to climate change, are known to worsen the effects of coastal storms by intensifying storm surges and increasing floods
• Researchers modeled actual water levels during Hurricane Sandy compared to how much damage there would have been without human-induced sea level rise – estimated as 10.5 centimetres in total between 1900 and 2012
• They concluded a difference of $8.1 billion in damages (out of $60 billion) compared to scenarios without human-induced sea level rise.
• However, this could have been as high as $14 billion using higher estimates for human-induced sea level rise

The research was published in Nature Communications

 

Maybe this will assuage your concerns, and maybe not.

National Assessment of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources—Results

Abstract
In 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed an assessment of the technically accessible storage resources (TASR) for carbon dioxide (CO2) in geologic formations underlying the onshore and State waters area of the United States. The formations assessed are at least 3,000 feet (914 meters) below the ground surface. The TASR is an estimate of the CO2 storage resource that may be available for CO2 injection and storage that is based on present-day geologic and hydrologic knowledge of the subsurface and current engineering practices. Individual storage assessment units (SAUs) for 36 basins were defined on the basis of geologic and hydrologic characteristics outlined in the assessment methodology of Brennan and others (2010, USGS Open-File Report 2010–1127) and the subsequent methodology modification and implementation documentation of Blondes, Brennan, and others (2013, USGS Open-File Report 2013–1055). The mean national TASR is approximately 3,000 metric gigatons (Gt). The estimate of the TASR includes buoyant trapping storage resources (BSR), where CO2 can be trapped in structural or stratigraphic closures, and residual trapping storage resources, where CO2 can be held in place by capillary pore pressures in areas outside of buoyant traps. The mean total national BSR is 44 Gt. The residual storage resource consists of three injectivity classes based on reservoir permeability: residual trapping class 1 storage resource (R1SR) represents storage in rocks with permeability greater than 1 darcy (D); residual trapping class 2 storage resource (R2SR) represents storage in rocks with moderate permeability, defined as permeability between 1 millidarcy (mD) and 1 D; and residual trapping class 3 storage resource (R3SR) represents storage in rocks with low permeability, defined as permeability less than 1 mD. The mean national storage resources for rocks in residual trapping classes 1, 2, and 3 are 140 Gt, 2,700 Gt, and 130 Gt, respectively. The known recovery replacement storage resource (KRRSR) is a conservative estimate that represents only the amount of CO2 at subsurface conditions that could replace the volume of known hydrocarbon production. The mean national KRRSR, determined from production volumes rather than the geologic model of buoyant and residual traps that make up TASR, is 13 Gt. The estimated storage resources are dominated by residual trapping class 2, which accounts for 89 percent of the total resources. The Coastal Plains Region of the United States contains the largest storage resource of any region. Within the Coastal Plains Region, the resources from the U.S. Gulf Coast area represent 59 percent of the national CO2 storage capacity.​

 

"From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches." How long have sea levels been rising? How does recent sea level rise compare to that over the previous centuries? – NASA Sea Level Change Portal https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20100%20years,about%206%20to%208%20inches.

What is going on with that? Somewhere between 160mm to 210mm over the last 100 years. That's quite the tolerance. 50mm variance over 210mm (8.3in) is almost 25% or about 30% over 160mm (6.3in) 3 to 4 inches of rise since 1993.

Sandy was in 2012. If sea level rise has been roughly consistent, and it hasn't been, between 1993 and now, that means sea levels were up 3 to 4 inches in '93 and have risen (3 to 4)/32 of an inch per year since, or 0.13 to 0.14 inches a year for 24 years until Sandy. This means sea level would have been up about 2.25 to 3 inches since '93.

IN, your quote claims over 10cm of sea level rise in the past 100 years are due to human activity. Maybe it is so, but what is this last 25 years been about when we have been officially aware of the problem, yet half of the change in sea level has occurred since the push to stop Climate Change, primarily because of fears of sea level rise? What have we been doing differently for the last 25 years?

Perhaps we can't control it at all and we are going down an eighth of an inch a year no matter what? We are way past the tipping point and like an economic crash, it can't be stopped until it gets to the bottom.

If we keep pumping carbon in the atmosphere we get warmer; if we clean up our act, the smog goes away and we get more moisture in the atmosphere and we get warmer. If Ice Sheets melt to lower altitudes, they melt faster, yet they are at lower altitudes. The borders of the Ice Sheets go down to sea level and are at the lowest latitudes. If they will melt when they are thinner because they have less altitude, they are melting no matter what.

The answer may be to stop incoming solar energy from turning into IR waves but to reflect it back out to space in the form of UV. We could sequester the heat under the Earth's crust. After all, we are ultimately losing heat and we don't want to become a cold dead planet in a few million years.

-Will

 

The answer is head for the hills if you're worried.

 

Pumping carbon into the air doesn't make it warmer. Carbon in the air follows warming, just as when you use a CO2 extinguisher to stop a fire.
But you are deaf to whatever contradicts the dogma.
The people selling the hoax are the same ones buying places on Martha's Vineyard.

 

Will, you've made lots of interesting observations.

It takes a lot of time to inform people, then more time for people to actually come to an internal decision that the problem is serious, then more time to figure out what can be done, then more time to actually do it.

The 2015 Paris Agreement was the most significant international agreement on what to do, but was admittedly insufficient to the task and mostly had no teeth. And it hasn't helped that US involvement was lacking for four years.

The problem is made even more difficult by the fact(s) that an individual person can't really observe climate change on their own, and if they do something that they think might help the problem (like buying an electric vehicle or paying a premium price for renewable electricity), they can't actually see that what they've done has improved the situation. CO2 levels keep going up, temperatures keep going up, glaciers keep melting, the oceans keep acidifying, etc.

I've only been seriously aware of the problem for less than 10 years. My own reaction has varied, multiple times, between "hair on fire" to total ambivalence. I am quite willing to cut and burn firewood off my land to heat my house (though there is a question whether burning firewood creates as many problems as it solves), but I am less sanguine about voluntarily traveling less in order to reduce my carbon footprint (I love traveling!).

So I keep hoping for a magical technological breakthrough. Cheap carbon sequestration; or cheap and safe fusion power; or cheap EVs with range and recharge time similar to ICEs. I guess I'm partially still in denial.

I understand that scientists have identified a number of potential climate tipping points. It may not be clear when we actually reach a tipping point, and it may not be clear what we have to do to prevent going past a tipping point. It's always easier to kick the can down the road for someone else to worry about.

 

What to Save? Climate Change Forces Brutal Choices at National Parks.

• For decades, the core mission of the Park Service was absolute conservation. Now ecologists are being forced to do triage, deciding what to safeguard — and what to let slip away.
• The Park Service has recently published an 80-page document that lays out new guidance for park managers in the era of climate change, along with two peer-reviewed papers
  
• The first one, titled “Resist, Accept, Direct,” aims to help park employees triage species and landscapes. In some cases, that will mean giving up long efforts to save them. The second outlines how to assess risks when relocating species.
  
• For instance, in the event of wildfires in the Southwest, up to 30 percent of forestland might never grow back. Joshua trees appear likely to lose all of their habitat in their namesake national park by the end of the century
  
• As temperatures warm, invasive, brambly shrubs are displacing some native tree species in Acadia National Park, Maine.
• In April, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service published a new webpage about Resist, Accept, Direct, acknowledging that climate change is fundamentally shifting the ecology inside several of its wildlife refuges

 

It does take a lot of time to indoctrinate people. That's why they start in kindergarten.
Don't let the gummint think for you. Use your own logic.

 

REVELATION 21:1
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

PSALMS 95:1-5
1O come, let us sing to the LORD; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation! 2Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise! 3For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods. 4In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. 5The sea is his, for he made it; for his hands formed the dry land.

 

Brainwashing and social engineering projects have a rather long history. It's not just getting you to buy products you don't need, it's about convincing people to accept even love their servitude. Mostly it relies on fear. AGW relies on fear of an AGW predicted possible future if you don't let the AGW crowd bully you into giving them power over you. I see and understand their tactics and refuse to bend a knee. I won't buy their song and dance.

 

Stupidity has an even longer history.

 

Climate change could make overwinter ‘zombie’ fires more common

• Zombie fires are boreal wildfires that survive the winter by smoldering in peaty soils
  
• Currently, zombie fires constitute less than 1% of area burned
• Researcher have noted that as the climate warms and soils dry out, zombie fires are becoming much more common
• To survive the winter, fires have to burn especially hot and deep; the amount of rain or snow that falls appears to be inconsequential
  
• In boreal forest about 90% of the carbon that is emitted comes from the soil
  
• Boreal peat protects permafrost below, which holds huge stores of sequestered carbon

The study was published in the journal Nature