Is the ocean broken?

How a Volcanic Surge 56 Million Years Ago Cut Off The Arctic Ocean From The Atlantic https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/a-volcanic-surge-56-million-years-ago-actually-narrowed-the-world-s-oceans/amp

EarthSky | Aurora alert! Pair of CMEs to jolt Earth’s magnetic field https://earthsky.org/space/aurora-alert-pair-of-cmes-to-jolt-earth/

Magnetic Reversals http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html#7

With Sqrt of -1's article casting doubt on the ability to see an accurate and complete picture of climate events as early as the medieval period, none of those comparisons can settle any arguments. However, we do know there are numerous forces contributing to the heat energy of our surface beyond human activity.

-Will

 

It's not my graph, it's from an AGW site. Apparently the extra peak was sometime after the little ice age and before now. Maybe the 1930s. Very hot 1930s, hotter than now. My point is climate is complicated and multifaceted and carbon taxes aren't the solution. There is no solution but to survive whatever happens. An ice age or a cookoff. Suck it up and deal with it the best we can, but keep the government out of it. Government is force, said George Washington. They use a sledge hammer as a flyswatter, can't run anything.without causing a train wreck. While going over budget!

 

Thanks for your imput, Will. I have long believed our weakening magnetic field is letting a lot more solar radiation through than we recognize, primarily because it defuses AGW and is ignored. In addition, Antarctic ice cores show CO2 increase lagging behind warming about 800 years. AGWers fatuously argue the CO2 somehow migrated up through the ice in a desperate attempt to ignore that evidence. The warming seas are out-gassing CO2 and the seas cover 70% of earth's surface, outstripping the populated areas. According to the site I posted from in recent posts, the deep sea warms and out-gasses roughly a thousand years behind the surface warming. Perhaps a strong case can be made for our current increasing levels of CO2 aren't human emissions, but being the result of the warming from MWP 800 or a thousand years ago causing out-gassing now. It fits the ice core data.

We simply don't know. The problem is people think they know, but are as simple minded as their over simplified hypothesis, looking for someone to blame. Blame is always an obstruction to, a diversion from problem solving. Never mind wasting time and resources laying blame, get to work on solving the problem.

 

Edited post. All better now.

 

A discussion of the Milankovich Cycles are found in every earth sciences textbook that covers the ice ages. The Milankovich Cycles are considered to be one of the motivating forces for the cyclical nature of ice ages, which come and go on a roughly 100,000-year period.

Milankovitch cycles | Wikipedia

It appears Earth should now be headed towards the next ice age -- except we are instead abruptly getting warmer, not cooler. This warming is not predicted or explained by the Milankovich Cycles.

Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming | NASA

 

Can you provide a reference where it is claimed that "CO2 has migrated up through the ice?"

No? I didn't think so.

As the oceans warm there may come a time when they out-gas CO2, but at this point, collectively, they are still net carbon sinks.

Ocean-Atmosphere CO2 Exchange | NOAA

Is the Southern Ocean absorbing or emitting carbon dioxide? | NOAA

Revised estimates of ocean-atmosphere CO2 flux are consistent with ocean carbon inventory | NATURE COMMUNICATIONS

Atmospheric CO2 Increase Is Not From Ocean Outgassing | blog

NO, we know the increase in CO2 is from burning fossil fuels.

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA

Is the Current Rise in CO2 Definitely Caused by Human Activities? | Scripps Institute of Oceanography

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

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2? | Skeptical Science

Maybe it's not necessary to lay "blame," but if we want to solve the problem it is absolutely necessary to correctly understand what is causing the problem. And if it is true that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of the problem, then the process of deciding how to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels will likely require us to take into consideration not only what each country is currently burning, but also what each country has historically burned. Thus politics will inevitably become a big part of this mess we're in.

 

Wrong again! I CAN provise a reference. You are too quick jumping to conclusions and you always underestimate me.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/94/16/8343.full.pdf


"The diffusivity of the firn is such that air at the base of thestagnant column today has a ‘‘CO2age’’ ranging from about 6yr for the GISP2 core (central Greenland) to about 40 years atVostok (East Antarctica). In point of fact, however, air in firnat a given depth is not of a siame age."

And my information is the tropics are out-gassing. From same site.

"''Many factors have been invoked to explain the glacial-interglacial change in the CO2concentration of air. The causeof this change was vigorously debated for a decade beginningin 1982. Recently attention to this subject has diminished,more because the protagonists are exhausted than because theissue is resolved. It is widely accepted that the pCO2 of the atmosphere is regulated by the pCO2 of surface seawater, because about 99% of the CO2 in the ocean-atmosphere system resides in the oceans. In his classic paper initiating the debate, Broecker (43) noted that lower glacial temperatures would cause the CO2 concentration of air to fall, whereas higher salinities would cause CO2 to rise. A glacial ocean temperature decrease of 1.5°C would cause CO2to fall by 20 ppmv. This change would be roughly offset by a salinity increase of 1‰. Recent controversial results showing that equatorial temperatures may have increased by up to 5°C suggest that the glacial–interglacial change in sea surface temperatures may have been much larger than Broecker initially estimated. If this is correct, the temperature change may have contributed 20 –30 ppm of the glacial–interglacial change in atmospheric pCO2 after correcting for the compensating effect of salinity (the temperature dependence of pCO2 on sea surface temperature is about 13 ppmvy°C; ref. 43). Clearly other factors must contribute to the glacial-interglacial difference in atmospheric pCO2. "

quoiting irrational number. "but also what each country has historically burned."

So you think the present and future generations should pay for what previous generations did, even if not blood relatives? Will recent immigrants be exempted? How recent? Are you trying to foment resentment and a civil war?

Bad logic and ignorance of human psychology and a total misunderstanding of Americans. Who are you? Rather, who do you think you are?

 

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide



If out-gassing by tropical seas contributed 30 ppm of CO2, what part is left for man's contribution? Not all the rest. Don't forget rotting vegetation and animals exhaling etc. Maybe the oceans contributed much more than the AGW fan writing the article was comfortable with and prepared to admit? Maybe out-gassing has been occurring for decades or longer, a latent response to the Medieval warm period. The timing is right according to a previous post.

Ignorant speculation does not justify draconian social engineering. Make certain, you target the real culprit, not whom you imagine to be guilty. Innocent until PROVEN guilty! Write that down and commit it to memory. You admitted you can't prove anything.

 

Two points:

The first is that firn is the name given to the layer of granular, unconsolidated snow lying between the surface of a glacier or snowfield, and the "solid" ice of the main glacier or snowfield. This unconsolidated snow is rather porous, which, unsurprisingly, allows gases captured within it to be able to diffuse. In this context diffuse does not specify a direction; the gasses are free to diffuse in any direction within the firn region. It is only as firn compacts to become "solid" ice that the air bubbles contained within the ice finally become entrapped, and are no longer able to diffuse. I'm not sure how long it takes for fresh snow to move through the firn stage and become solid ice? Your reference leads me to think 6 to 40 years might be a reasonable range. If that is the case, then the concentrations of isotopes of the various atmospheric gasses entrapped in the ice may be off by a certain percent. The article suggests that this will need to be taken into account, but I don't read that they think this adjustment is an impossible undertaking. The article was developed from a colloquium in 1995, and I could imagine the subsequent 25 years might have provided sufficient time to iron out the details of the sampling process.

My second point is that the quote you provided still doesn't seem to support your contention that "AGWers fatuously argue the CO2 somehow migrated up through the ice." Since CO2 is heavier than air I would think that if CO2 migrated in any direction it would be downwards! But I don't see any argument from anyone that once the CO2 is entrapped in ice it migrates upward.

I agree with you that warm tropical oceans are outgassing CO2. However, I was careful to state that

The colder oceans of the world are not yet saturated with CO2, and, IIRC, absorb ~25% of the "excess" CO2 that humans are producing by burning fossil fuels. Which is why the oceans are acidifying (or becoming less basic, if you prefer).

I didn't say what I think should happen. What I meant to say is that there already is arguments from less developed countries that since they have historically not contributed nearly as much CO2 to the atmosphere as the more developed countries have, and that since they have not benefited economically from cheap carbon fuels in the same way that more developed countries have, then they should not have to bear as heavy a burden in the process of weening ourselves off fossil fuels.

This is a political and ethical question, as well as an economical and technological question. And it will have to be resolved through a political process.

 

So?

 

Much of modern technology was developed in western developed countries because of a free exchange of ideas. You argue our better lifestyle and greater use of carbon fuels means we owe the less developed nations some sort of compensation. What do they owe us for our technologies improving their lifestyles? How about we call it tit for tat, an even swap?

 

Marine life will need to 'adapt or die' as ocean surfaces change

• Ocean surface climates refer to a combination of water temperature, acidity and concentration of aragonite, a mineral used by marine creatures like coral
• If the rate at which we've been releasing carbon doesn't change, environmental researchers suggest about 95% of ocean surface climates could disappear by 2100
• Based on the current carbon emission trajectory, in the next 80 years over 80% of the ocean surface may be covered in novel, high-temperature and acidic climates
• Even reducing CO2 emisisons from business-as-usual could result in endangering 35% of the ocean by 2100 instead of the jaw-dropping 95% with the way we're headed

The results were published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports

 

Arctic warming linked to colder winters

• The melting of ice in the Barents and Kara seas leads to increased snowfall over Siberia and a transfer of excess energy that impacts the swirling winds in the stratosphere above the North Pole, which ultimately causes a stretching of the vortex that then enables extremely cold weather to flow down to the US
• A notably instance was the Texas cold wave last February
  
• Warming in the Arctic is having a significant impact on winter weather in both North America and East Asia

The study was published in the journal Science

 

warming is colder? Who in their right mind would swall0ow that insane malarkey?

 

New Research Helps Explain a Sudden Population Crash for Rare Whales

• The North Atlantic right whales have veered from slow recovery to alarming decline
  
• They abandoned their traditional feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine in 2010, the same year that warming water caused the fatty crustaceans they eat to plummet in the area
  
• Many of the whales eventually followed their food north to the Gulf of St. Lawrence
  
• But the protections from fishing gear and ships that had safeguarded them in their previous habitat did not exist in their new one
• Entanglement in gear is the leading cause of death for North Atlantic right whales, followed by collisions with vessels
  
• Furthermore, researchers found that the decline in crustaceans have led to a drop in reproductive rates
  
• There are only 356 North Atlantic right whales remaining, out of the estimated 10,000 before whaling started

The research was published in the journal Oceanography