Our Oceans are Under Attack

Unchecked Warming To Dust-Bowlify Southwest, Central Plains, Amazon, Europe For Centuries | THINK PROGRESS.ORG

 

Unprecedented my eye. pure hype
There have been many droughts in many decades in SW.
It's called the western desert. Part's called Mojave desert. Average Precipitation map below.
http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_north_america/maps_of_usa/average_precipitation_map_of_USA.jpg

But let's say it's perhaps a new record for extent of area or days without rain, or least rainfall in any year on record, whatever.
Records get broken.
But we HAVE to check out this opportunistic claim that man made CO2 is to blame for this and future droughts.

Most atmospheric CO2 is naturally caused, and only a small percent of CO2 is human caused. Of course we are natural occupants of earth too, but that get's forgotten.
How is it a tiny, tiny % of CO2 in the atmosphere, 400 parts per million parts now, (that's ALL the CO2) supposedly causes greenhouse warming?
I remember. It supposedly works as a forcing agent, increasing humidity and cloud cover dramatically so vastly more water vapor traps the heat. Right?

Okay. How in blue blazes does excess humidity or water vapor become a drought?
And if it isn't the infamous CO2 water vapor moisture cycle, How in blue blazes does a tiny atmospheric %, 400 ppm CO2, cause a drought or affect anything?
And how is reducing OUR minor CO2 contribution going to prevent droughts in desert areas?
Ah, a new forcing mechanism. Forcing AGWers to eat their words!
But go ahead and explain. I can't WAIT to hear THIS BS story!

Plucked this gem from article posted by imaginarynumber. "drying effect of carbon pollution" LOL

Reminds me of a pet dog years ago. broke a fore leg when young, and we set the bone, doctored her, gave her lotsa affection and she healed.
The rest of her life, if she wanted attention, she'd fake a limp, but couldn't remember which leg was broke, so limped with either one. Never forgot the abundant affection she received, obviously .

Are AGWers tripping over their own limping ancient propaganda? Forget the original dogma did they? LOL Missing the limelight are they?
The THEORY of everything. Do you BELIEVE these desperate opportunists? If you do, I've got some Mojave beach for sale.

 

It's fair enough to give your honest assessment of facts. What is not fair enough is to keep posting as if contradicting posts had never been made, and refusing to address them. If someone posts information that addresses a point that was raised, you should at least acknowledge it and give it serious consideration. Other people do that for your posts, but you and other deniers frequently don't see fit to return the courtesy. That's why we keep seeing the same old points dredged up over and over again.

Your post relied on information that is out of date and is widely known to be out of date.

Nobody is attempting to excuse it from consideration. What people attempted to do was find out where the heat was going. They found out. It is going into the deeper waters of the ocean, which are a massive heat sink and are known to be mixed (slowly) with the warmer upper waters. Given that they are slowly mixed, it is impossible for there to not be some heat transfer happening. It makes perfect sense that if the amount of heat stored in surface water increases, this will also increase heat transfer to deeper water. It has to. It's perfectly logical. It would be surprising if it didn't happen. However, you can't just claim it is happening by a particular amount unless you have a series of reliable measurements from deep water around the world. Gathering that takes time. The deep ocean has been probably of the most poorly studied region of all on earth. As you know, it was only finally topographically mapped fairly well the other day. The situation was similar with temperature. Data was near to nothing. They had to gather it.

The bottom line is that five years ago the "pause" was a legitimate question. These days it's a done deal. There isn't any pause in the mount of heat being put into the system. It has been increasing constantly. It's just that we've had a period where it was being stored in such a way that surface temperature did not increase.

People having excessively firm belief systems are less able to deal with information that comes along and falsifies their belief system, because of the high value they put on the belief system, which leads them to want to deny evidence that contradicts it. You're an OEC, right? I'm sure you have argued with YEC's. So have I. They're prime examples of what I am talking about. You are in a similar situation with regard to AGW. It panics you, because as soon as any form of regulation is mentioned you have dark and overwhelming visions of totalitarian oppression and economic ruin. Therefore, you feel compelled to deny and deny and deny, whatever is put in front of you.

I already know about the pole reversal prospects. It is "iminent" in geological time, but may not concern us. The magnetic field can be taken into account when calculating heat transfers anyway. So can cloud cover and umpteen other factors.

One important one, which deniers used to love and is dealt with in standard calculations anyway, is the activity of the Sun. Our Sun is behaving like a normal star of its class, which means that over time the amount of heat it has put out has been increasing. As it turns out, we happen to be living roughly halfway through the tenure of complex life on Earth. In another five hundred million years or so, the Sun's output will be high enough to make Earth uninhabitable by anything except extremophile bacteria. Eventually, even they will be cooked.

Looking back the other way, five hundred million years ago the amount of heat reaching the Earth from the Sun was significantly lower than it is now. This is, or should be, common knowledge to anyone who takes a basic interest in AGW, since even if they start from knowing nothing they should pick this up in a few casual hours.

That graph of past CO₂ levels that Petros loves to dig up every so often is available on Wiki. On the same page, it talks about the difference in solar heat output over time. It tells you that half a billion years ago, the high CO₂ present then would not have had the same effect on surface temperature as it would now, because of how much lower the Sun's heat output was then. It would obviously have had some effect, but the same level these days would have a far greater effect.

As I said, anyone who takes even a cursory interest in AGW should know this, since it's one of the most basic points relating to the subject. Despite this, we still see that graph dredged up without the dredger mentioning the changing solar output, just so they can somewhat idiotically keep asking "How come everything didn't get cooked back then, huh?".

This is, if not dishonest, at least displaying a remarkable lack of ability to read.

 

That the extra heat is going in the ocean is just another hypothesis.
It's another unverifiable assertion.
You believe if you can come up with an alternative option, like a defendant proposing another credible suspect, causing reasonable doubt, you win your case.
Not so.
AGW doesn't get accorded innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt status.
The FACT that Maurice Strong and associates invented this AGW scam and made millions off it, before he was forced to resign, will always prevent it being taken seriously or legitimate by opponents of socialism.
The tactics AGWers use to discredit or destroy careers of scientists with contrary views causes mistrust.
Statements like "The science is settled!" prove AGW is a fraud. No real science would make such a claim.
There are many more reasons similar to these, your side isn't and won't be trusted.
The pause is real.
AGW never was real.

 

As far as the sun being much cooler or the earth getting less heat from the sun half a billion years ago, very little difference.

9942 degrees F today and 9904 degrees F half billion years ago. A difference of 38 degrees F Arrived by converting Kelvin to Fahrenheit and average the temperatures per half billion year intervals over 4.5 billion years.

So argue against that CO2 chart Petros likes again?

"When the Sun was 'born' about 4.5 billion years ago, it had a temperature of about 5,586K. Today it is about 5,779K. It will continue to grow slightly hotter over the next few billion years until it reaches hydrogen core exhaustion 4.5 billion years from now, known as the subgiant phase, it will cool to about 4,902K. As the Sun reaches it's red giant phase 7.5 billion years from now, it will actually cool to 3,107K. As it reaches the helium burning phase 200 million years later, it will have a temperature of 4,724K. 110 million years later, it cools to 4,450K. 7.9 billion years from now, the helium core will be exhausted and the Sun will enter the second red giant phase at a cool 3,160K ejecting layer upon layer until the carbon-oxygen core is exposed revealing a temperature of 120,000K. This marks the beginning of the white dwarf cooling phase around 8 billion years from now. We do not know what the final temperature of white dwarfs are. The Universe is not yet old enough for the first generation of white dwarfs to have cooled. This is a process occuring over trillions of years. "

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...QR2dGlkA1NNRTcxNl8x?qid=20070924221129AA0ZmkM

 

"Fast track" science?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-panic-losing-propaganda-battle-sceptics.html

How absurd can it get!
Some climate science proponents want storms linked in the media to global warming within 3 days of their occurrence to keep it fresh in the public mindset that AGW is the cause of any big storm systems.

Otherwise the public looses interest, and their message is not having the intended clout, can it get much worse that that for climate science!
Of course such people 'know' the science is settled so real science research is just getting in the way of the truth...!

 

I want to hear or read how the CO2 water vapor forcing green house phenomenon is causing drought. ROFLMAO

 

Who do, who do they think they're foolin?

Hoodoo science. It's so obviously phony!

 

I don't argue with YECs. I don't disparage anyones faith, except atheists.
If they admitted theirs is a faith based secular religion, I wouldn't battle with them.
Since they won't, they're fair game.

 

It's hard for us to get over our "belief" that someone who has gone to college and dedicated decades of their life to studying a subject, a "climate scientist" or an "oceanographer", knows more than someone who hasn't. And I don't believe your belief that our whole education system is corrupt. I don't believe that anyone who goes through a master or phD program on climate science or oceanography can't see straight any more.

 

I went to college for a lot of years.
Did my freshman year, dropped out, enlisted, went to war.
After 4 years military service, I took classes when ever I could, when work permitted, as a part time student.
From day 1 as a college freshman to the day I got my degree was bit more than 16 years. so I got to experience changing college culture at various schools over this lengthy time period.
I witnessed but wasn't persuaded by these cultural changes. I'm a 50s era boy.
Some folks picked up some mighty weird notions in college. Maybe they kept those ideas all through their PHD program and after.
Having a PHD doesn't mean you aren't radical.

I posted a Nova episode about imminent pole shift few posts back. A scientist interviewed in the program, created a computer model about the earths core and magnetic field with all the info he knew. After 4 years or so of continuous calculations, the computer model showed a pole reversal. He was surprised because nothing in the model encouraged such an event, except the raw natural data originally fed in. But he was excited, and researched a bunch more, and more pole shifts came up.

Climatologists do it differently.
They make computer models, not about earth's climate, but about Human induced climate change.
And THEY are surprised when they DON'T get catastrophic projections.
So they tweak the model until they do get catastrophic projections to publish.
Then when actual temperatures don't reach the levels they warned us about, they hunt for excuses where the temperatures hid themselves, because the model can't possibly be wrong.

Do you notice anything weird in this climate model, agenda skewed methodology compared to the magnetic field model's unbiased/scientific method?

 

No. it's not unverifiable. All you have to do is take enough temperature records over a sustained period. You know, like you would in Florida if you wanted to know temperature trends.

Sure, it's real, for the moment, if you are only measuring surface temperature. It's not real if you are measuring the total amount of heat going into the Earth's system as a whole.

You're making the mistake of of assuming temperature is the same as heat output. It isn't, because the Sun is also getting larger, which means it has more surface area to radiate from, which means the heat output goes up even if the temperature itself does not.

Because of this, the whole main sequence period is not relevant to life on Earth. Life on Earth will be screwed well before the Sun runs out of hydrogen.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Earth.27s_fate. Note that another 10% increase in solar heat output will be enough to vaporise the oceans. 500 million years ago the output would have been 5% less than now. It should be clear that this would be enough to offset the greenhouse effect of a considerable amount of CO2.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth

 

A graph supporting NoEyeDeer's explanation about the Sun's surface temperature vs its size and luminosity.


Solar Luminosity

How the Sun and Earth are expected to look like in 8 billion years.


The Sun's Evolution

 

Well I'm not worried about 8 billion years from now.

Anyway, I was thinking about this heat output thing and temporarily stumped myself. Someone else might have the same stumping, so I thought I should sort it out now.

What I got stuck on was if the Sun's surface temperature stays the same, then heat output for a given area of the Sun's surface would also stay the same. The Earth's area is constant, as is its distance from the Sun, so you might think that even if the Sun's total area (= heat output) goes up it wont affect the Earth, since the area of Sun that is radiating to the Earth will stay the same, so the Earth will get the same amount of heat.

It took me a little while to figure out what I was missing. The catch is that the Sun's radiation out here is distributed over a spherical surface with the same radius as our orbit. That area is fixed. If the Sun's heat output goes up inside that spherical surface, heat for a given area on that spherical surface will increase. This means Earth gets cooked.

The estimate is that the extra 10% luminosity in one billion years from now will be enough to raise average surface temperature to 47 degrees Celsius, and that is enough to start runaway evaporation of the oceans. This temperature increase is about 33 degrees Celsius over the current global average of approximately 14 degrees. Since we really have to talk absolute temperatures here, we're talking about an increase from the current 287 degrees Kelvin to a future 320 degrees Kelvin one billion years from now. This is an increase in absolute temperature of 11%, so you can see it closely corresponds to the increase in solar output.

Similarly, half a billion years ago when luminosity was 5% lower, you would expect that (all else being equal) the global average temperature would have been around 16 or 17 degrees Celsius cooler than it is now, which would put it slightly below freezing. What evidence we have from the geological record indicates it wasn't nearly that cold, and also indicates the C02 levels were massively higher. So, it seems reasonable to conclude that, yes folks, putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere is surely going to heat the place up. The catch is that we, at this point in time, are starting from a higher baseline temperature, so have less room for error.

 

Depends on what you call a lot of CO2 when dealing with a global scale.
Human annual contribution to atmospheric Co2 is mini-mini-miniscule relative to the vast ocean of air surrounding our planet.
AGWers like to confuse scales in their propaganda, ie 100's of tons of carbon pollution, half the worlds species going extinct in recent decades, tenths of degree Celsius temperature rise, parts per million concentration, meters of projected sea rise, ect.

I presume those publishing these mismatched figures aren't confused by them, because I'm not.
But I suspect the intent is to confuse and alarm gullible people. It's hoped the public will panic and grasp at straws, blindly voting for AGW programs.

Social engineering, marketing science, crowd manipulation.

I refuse to be manipulated. I'm not a sheeple. I resist. "I have not yet begun to fight!" John Paul Jones. HMS Serapis vs USS Bonhomme Richard

So when do I see this reverse forcing mechanism how CO2 creates drought?
We all know CO2 is too tiny a part of the atmosphere and too weak to cause harm by itself.
Only by acting as catalyst or agent can CO2 influence climate.
Always before, CO2 served increased atmospheric water vapor, the most powerful dominant greenhouse gas, according to AGW theory.

Now CO2 causes drought?

You KNOW I'm laying in ambush and am going to bust your chops with lack of fallibility.
No valid scientific hypothesis predicts heads you win, tails I lose.
You can't have both CO2 makes it wet and CO2 makes it dry.
Climate isn't subject to your whims, nor are we the people.