Ocean News

I wanted to respond to this earlier post, particularly about the idea that linear increase in CO2 results in a less then linear increase in temperature. That is true at a basic level, but it is less than complete in the case of our earth.

First, the graph that Yob shows is what happens AFTER temperatures have stabilized. In the case of our atmosphere, temperatures have NOT stabilized. That means that even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, temperatures would still keep rising for a while, until heat input matched heat loss.

Second, not all CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere, but only about 45%, as I recall. The rest is absorbed by the oceans, etc. However, as the ocean become more and more saturated with CO2 (which causes problems of its own), less and less of the CO2 emissions will be absorbed by the ocean, and more and more will stay in the atmosphere. Thus, effective CO2 emission COULD increase even if actual emission stabilized, or even decreased.

And third, actual CO2 emissions could actually increase because the world's demand for petroleum products continues to increase. Thus the urgent need to find alternative sources of energy.

Here is a more complete explanation:

If growth of CO2 concentration causes only logarithmic temperature increase - why worry? | Skeptical Science

 

That more complete "explanation" never discusses logarithmic equations except admitting they were in IPCC reports and denying them.

".
AGWers keep saying things like "Physics says....., except in THIS case it's different, or after it's stabilized, or it changed beginning in 20th century.

Marcin Popkiewicz isn't discussing mathematics or science in this article from skeptical science..
He over and over reasserts temperature has a linear relationship to CO2. Proven wrong! And assertions aren't arguments. They're chants!

Looking at his article with word search for logarithmic, we find 4 instances:

The first statement is proven false and the second has been PROVEN inaccurate, but an equal increase in temperature for subsequent doublings of CO2 concentration IS logarithmic. It' just not the correct logarithmic equation.

He doesn't believe it.

He admits the climatologists writing the IPCC report DO believe it's a logarithmic relationship.

That's his "argument" against it's logarithmic. "NO, It's LINEAR! or EXPONENTIAL!"
No evidence, just his STRONG belief.
Proven false and doesn't sell.

http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/modeling/co2_climate_model_activity.html

Is a site teaching about climate models. To simplify for instruction sake, they limit the model to ONLY CO2 influence.

The equation they use, like the IPCC climatologists, is logarithmic. (And like the IPCC's, a TOO AGRESSIVE logarithmic formula, inconsistent with observed data.)

EVERY valid scientific mathematical discussion of CO2 says the relationship to warming is logarithmic.


NOT exponential or linear!
Actual data, the observed temperatures and measured ppm of CO2, prove it IS logarithmic.

The actual observed data is the red line in the chart you reproduced for me.

Marcin Popkiewicz and people like him, are stuck on the dogma of a failed "linear" hypothesis, and are out of touch with reality.

Logarithmic equations ALWAYS graph, to a flat line, a maximum limit.

 

Quote
http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-record-hot-february-astronomical-140020152.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth got so hot last month that federal scientists struggled to find words, describing temperatures as "astronomical," ''staggering" and "strange." They warned that the climate may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood.

This was not just another of the drumbeat of 10 straight broken monthly global heat records, triggered by a super El Nino and man-made global warming.

NOAA said Earth averaged 56.08 degrees (13.38 degrees Celsius) in February, 2.18 degrees (1.21 degrees Celsius) above average, beating the old record for February set in 2015 by nearly six-tenths of a degree (one-third of a degree Celsius). These were figures that had federal scientists grasping for superlatives.

"The departures are what we would consider astronomical," Blunden said. "It's on land. It's in the oceans. It's in the upper atmosphere. It's in the lower atmosphere. The Arctic had record low sea ice."

"Everything everywhere is a record this month, except Antarctica," Blunden said. "It's insane."

In the Arctic, where sea ice reached a record low for February, land temperatures averaged 8 degrees above normal (4.5 degrees Celsius), Blunden said. That's after January, when Arctic land temperatures were 10.4 degrees above normal (5.8 degrees Celsius).

Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb said she normally doesn't concern herself much with the new high temperature records that are broken regularly.

"However," she added in a Thursday email," when I look at the new February 2016 temperatures, I feel like I'm looking at something out of a sci-fi movie. In a way we are: it's like someone plucked a value off a graph from 2030 and stuck it on a graph of present temperatures. It is a portent of things to come, and it is sobering that such temperature extremes are already on our doorstep."

Scientists at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, were astonished by the "staggering" numbers, said Deke Arndt, the centers' global monitoring chief.

"Usually these are monthly reminders that things are changing," Arndt said. "The last six months have been more than a reminder, it's been like a punch in the nose."

 

The link you provided and explanation is clear to understand from common sense that even denialist rarely base any argument on that chart unless its distorted by the very small % that have trouble coping with reality and have no care for our children's future.

 

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/ says 28 percent is absorbed by "plants"and 26 percent by the ocean.

 

A closed mind ALWAYS finds consolation in articles he agrees with, even the most ridiculous such as IN posted.
Be sure you eat a GOOD lunch everyday.
One day you'll make that "You don't love your kids if you don't agree with me." statement to the wrong person, and you'll have your next month's lunches through a straw!

 

Quote
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/

But will the oceans always be able to take up that proportion of human CO2 emissions year in and year out?

Probably not in the near term, said Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego marine chemist Andrew Dickson.
Dickson noted there are other factors at play. Human fossil fuel use is also behind a general warming trend in the oceans observed over the past 50 years that increases the resistance to CO2 uptake. Furthermore, in the absence of such warming, ocean mixing would normally be expected to be constantly refreshing the water at the ocean’s surface, the place where it meets with air and dissolves CO2. Instead global warming leaves surface water in place to an increasing degree thus slowing down the transfer of CO2 from the ocean surface deeper into the ocean. It’s as if the pump removing CO2 from the atmosphere into the surface water and then on deeper into the ocean had slowed down.

This slowing of ocean mixing may have another effect. It stifles the transport of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate from deeper waters to the surface, which diminishes the growth of phytoplankton, which store carbon in their tissue as a product of photosynthesis. The sinking tissue takes the carbon with it to the deep ocean when the organisms die. It’s another way that carbon can be removed from the ocean surface.

 

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-climate-change-kicks-in-but-who-is-listening

Meltdown Earth: the Shocking Reality of Climate Change Kicks In – but Who is Listening?

And another one bites the dust. The year 2014 was the warmest ever recorded by humans. Then 2015 was warmer still. January 2016 broke the record for the largest monthly temperature anomaly. Then came last month.

February didn’t break climate change records – it obliterated them. Regions of the Arctic were were more than 16℃ warmer than normal – whatever constitutes normal now. But what is really making people stand up and notice is that the surface of the Earth north of the equator was 2℃ warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. This was meant to be a line that must not be crossed.

Two degrees was broadly interpreted as the temperature that could produce further, potentially runaway warming.

We are currently swamping the Earth’s ability to absorb greenhouse gases. 2015 saw the largest annual increase in carbon dioxide since records began – far higher than the Earth has experienced for hundreds of thousands of years.

More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means higher temperatures. There is already one positive feedback loop in operation; the extra warming from our emissions is increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which further increases temperatures. Fortunately, this is not a very strong feedback loop.

Unfortunately, there seem to be other, much more powerful ones lurking in the event of further warming. Tipping points such as the thaw of permafrost and release of the very powerful greenhouse gas methane in large quantities would drive world temperatures well beyond the 2℃ threshold.

Know what’s trending on Twitter as I write? A photoshopped giant dog, the latest Game of Thrones trailer and Kim Kardashian’s naked body. Actually, it’s mainly Kim Kardashian’s naked body and people’s responses to it. Followed by people’s responses to the responses.
But we appear disinterested, either through denial or desensitisation, to the environmental changes happening right in front of our eyes.

 

2014 wasn't any warmer than half a dozen scattered earlier years. And 2015 7/100ths of a degree warmer than 2014.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01...f-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/
We will wait and see if your dire predictions come to pass.

And if they don't?

Well, AGWers are cooked either way.

 

Quote
http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/03/climate-kids-challenge-federal-government/

A federal judge in Oregon is deciding whether a group of children have the right to take the federal government to court over climate change and hold leaders accountable for squandering natural resources, including clean water and air.

These children ranging from 8 years old to those in their teenage years are the faces of a public lawsuit organized by Our Children’s Trust. The suit compels leaders to take bold steps to prevent atmospheric carbon emissions from veering further out of control. Records already show that global CO2 emissions have reached 400 parts per million even though 350ppm is the highest level climate scientists have deemed safe.

The children are making the case that America’s failure to act on climate change is robbing future generations of opportunities. The youth include the granddaughter of former director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen. Their legal team is arguing the consequences of not turning back climate change are so serious that the next generation is being denied its fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

As an expert on climate change science, Hansen offered a declaration addendum to the plaintiffs’ case. The declaration includes this explanation of the government’s contradictory role regarding climate:

“On the one hand, our federal government has recognized a fundamental duty to protect the public resources of our nation; to safeguard our lives and property; to secure the blessings of liberty; to ensure equal protection under the law for ‘ourselves and our posterity’; and, pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to ‘protect the climate system for present and future generations.’

“On the other hand, the federal government continues to permit and otherwise support industry’s efforts to exploit fully our reserves of gas, coal, and oil, even in the face of increasing overwhelming evidence that our continued fossil fuel dependency is driving the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) far beyond that in human experience, and constitutes one of the greatest threats to our nation, human civilization and nature alike.

“These antinomies cannot be explained away as the product of ignorance. Our government has known for decades that the continued burning of coal, oil and natural gas causes global warming and risks dangerous and uncontrollable destabilization of the planet’s climate system on which our nation and future generations depend.”

Several of the young plaintiffs have been outspoken throughout the civil process. Sixteen-year-old plaintiff Victoria Barrett told reporters at a news conference: “I want to do what I love and live a life full of opportunities. I want the generation that follows to have the same and I absolutely refuse to let our government’s harmful action, corporate greed, and the pure denial of climate science get in the way of that.”

Our Children’s Trust is a human rights and environmental justice organization.

 

Quote

We might be able to do something useful with all that CO2 we’ve been spewing into the atmosphere—make plastic.

Chemists Inspired by Plants Make Plastic Out of Carbon Dioxide
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/p...by-plants-make-plastic-out-of-carbon-dioxide/

Capturing waste CO2 to make something useful isn’t a new idea. Over the years, chemists have devised myriad different reactions that can use the gas. There’s just one problem: None of them are very environmentally friendly, often requiring so much energy that there’s no climate benefit. But if a new, more energy efficient process pans out, waste CO2 could become a desirable commodity.
Carbon dioxide is an incredibly abundant molecule, but also inherently stable. To make it a suitable ingredient in chemical processes, chemists first have to break its carbon-oxygen bonds, which has required gobs of energy. But scientists knew there had to be a better way. After all, plants crack CO2 and turn it into sugar using little more than sunlight and oxygen.

Chemists at Stanford University were, in fact, inspired by RuBisCo, the enzyme that plants use to pry CO2 apart, when they devised a new reaction to produce FDCA, a plastic precursor. The process mixes CO2, waste plant material, and special salts and heats them up to at least 392˚ F. With further processing, the resulting FDCA can be turned into PEF, a plastic that could easily replace PET, or the plastic that is found in everything from soda bottles to synthetic fleece jackets.

 

PC = Queen's Privy Council for Canada
OC = Order of Canada
ONB = Order of New Brunswick
QC = Queen's Counsel
Frank McKenna (not me), but again the Frank McKenna in the story and poem is only partly based on the real guy, whoever he is. ;-)

Thanks for the well wishes. What I like about poems, short stories, and specifically speculative fiction, is that you can leave much of the heavy lifting to he reader... filling in blanks, interpreting metaphors, further research. Saves me the trouble of understanding what exactly I am writing about.

I just have to get better at getting the readers to be willing to do so. ;-)

I will try and keep at it. Hope to do as Webb Chiles has done, do it while circumnavigating, although I am getting a late start on both.

 

I've never heard of such a tactic.
I thought authors started with a story outline.

One of my favorite kinds of books in the past, was interactive adventures.
The reader is offered a decision choice after reading a scenario.
If reader decides option (A), turn to page 23. If (B), turn to page 47.
Fun books, and usually in scifi/fantasy genre.
Don't know if there's a market for the type anymore.
3D shooter computer games, probably usurped the audience.

 

I found New Brunswick to be in very good order.

 

The good ones probably do.