Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 Next
Comments 78301 to 78350:
-
scaddenp at 08:58 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
"I will leave it up to you to tell villagers in Asia, Africa, or South America that they can't have" Their rights, like yours, like mine, only extend as far as not constricting the rights of others. As far as I can see, that means reducing CO2 emissions much faster than now. The Western world is responsible for almost all of the current increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and so it seems to me that we are beholden to the most to reduce. Whatever you personal choices, I would say US government action has been exceedingly ineffective. And by the way, looking USA trade deficit, how much of the very modest reduction in emissions is from exporting these emissions to China? -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:58 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
muon @ 65 I plaiinly stated that the Navy at least is developing contingency plans for SLR. I don't understand your confuion. Bases built in areas of low elevation are going to have to address any possible future changes in sea level. Think about this: at some point in the future the oceans will recede again and the naval bases will have to extend instead of retreat. -
Rob Painting at 08:47 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP "Rignot also says ice loss of polar ice sheets accelerates at a rate of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2, which makes 0.101 ± 0.006 mm/yr2 (and 2006 was five years ago). Also, he happens to mentions GIC (Glaciers & Ica Caps) which add another 402 ± 95 Gt/yr in 2006, that is, 1.1 ± 0.3 mm/yr. Also with acceleration of course, 11.8 ± 6 Gt/yr2 in this case, that is, 0.033 ± 0.014 mm/yr2................Go figure Go figure indeed. At least I now know how you arrive at your erroneous calculations, so it's useful in that respect. Just how much of Rignot (2011) did you read? You committed the logical fallacy of linear extrapolation. Here's a hint:
I think it's a bit rich for you to proclaim the experts wrong when you don't even understand the basics.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 08:43 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
mufon@63 Thank you for the link. I followed it and found many interesting papers. Some of the research was actually done in my state and at research centers that I have worked at. Very cool! I have not had time to read more than a few of the presentations. But, at least one them mentioned something that I have been thinking about. Of course SLR will eventually cause freshwater marshes to convert to saltwater marshes and then the saltwater marshes to disappear as the water gets deeper. However, it should be remembered that that new marshes will be created at the same time. Simple arithmetic will confirm that overall there will be a loss of wetlands because of shrinking land mass, but they just don't go away. The pluses have to be factored in with the minuses. I think too many times the minuses only are focused on. And, I am providing a link to my thesis to show you that I really have studied and worked with these people. I am not sure if the thesis will pull up or not. My focus was on crawfish, but I did a tremendous amount of work with redfish and oysters as well. -
muoncounter at 08:43 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate#64: "I talked to two of my friends..." Is that what constitutes research? Let's try the Google machine: Here's a .mil website about SLR impact that cites the CNA study. A recent study directed by a board of senior retired military officers also recommended that the DoD conduct assessments of the impact on United States military installations of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other projected climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years. Here's a DoD workshop: The project’s sea level rise risk assessment moves beyond the arguments of cause and effect and begin planning to address its potentially devastating effects. The consequences of climate change and sea level rise are clear, the disruption of the organization, training, equipping, and planning of the military services. This from Defense News: A sea-level rise in the Arctic over the next two decades is "highly certain to occur and highly certain to come with economic costs" in a region thought to hold more than one-fifth of the world's untapped hydrocarbons, it said. I don't know who CNA is, nor do I care. The fact is that the US military recognizes this problem, whether you do or not. -
Berényi Péter at 08:23 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#77 scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 1 August, 2011 In short, is there any conceivable data that would cause you to change your mind? A long, continuous, global, dense and consistent database of UTH (Upper Tropospheric Humidity) would be nice. The same for cloud cover. And windspeed over the Southern ocean. Declassifying some military databases perhaps? Mining them for climate indicators? -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:14 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
muoncounter @ 40 I was intriqued by your link to the CNA document. I talked to two of my friends who are active duty military. One is a Lt. Colonel in the US Army and has served extensively overseas in combat sitatutions. The other is a Lt. Commander in the US Navy and has served stateside only in various functions. The Army officer has never heard of this document, and further stated that he has never been briefed on any security issues relating to climate change. The Naval officer had heard of this study. He did not know who it was commissioned by. He said the USN is looking at contingency plans for their ports and bases as it pertains to sea level rise. However, he had no knowledge of security issues related to SLR. -
muoncounter at 08:08 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate#60 and EtR: "I honestly want to know about the ecosystems that are definitely in danger due to SLR" There's an ample list of ecosystems among the papers I referenced here. Do the homework. "SLR is going to be slow in human terms" Do you still refuse to accept the well-documented conclusion that SLR, however slow, a. Has already had serious effects b. Shortens the return time of the '100 year storm' c. Makes storm surges worse? I suspect so, because you're still going on about this being a slow problem, one that can be postponed for someone else to solve. If so, you've proved my point here. Or as a wise man once said, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:06 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp @ 61 Americans are reducing our emissions. There is a lot of pushback and a lot of that is from environmental groups whether it concerns solar or wind or nuclear. I get my power from nuclear and hydroelectric. I am not sure where you are coming from on your last sentence. Everyone on Earth should be able to enjoy the benefits of electricity and transportation. I am quite sure you do. Food lasts longer, living conditions are more tolerable, medicine can be properly maintained, etc... I will leave it up to you to tell villagers in Asia, Africa, or South America that they can't have that because CO2 emissions lead to AGW and that leads to SLR. Certainly, there are smarter ways to do manage our use of FF. Certainly, mistakes have been made. But, I feel quite certain in the next few decades new sources of energy will come online and be dependable and affordable. -
scaddenp at 07:52 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate - I live in NZ. And yes, those are difficult questions. That is whole point. Americans in particular push the viewpoint of individual liberty of action and with it goes the responsibility for the consequences. However, responsibility can be very difficult to assign, especially for inter-generational debt hence the need to governement action. You cannot find a way to cost the responsibility, therefore you limit your emissions. Either solve the problems of assignment of responsibility or dont incur the liability. You dont seriously entertain the idea that western world should enjoy the benefit of FF use while the rest of the world pays for the consequences? -
Berényi Péter at 07:49 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#65 Rob Painting at 01:19 AM on 1 August, 2011 The Rignot (2011) paper cited by BP says this: "In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 G t /y r , equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise." How do we get from that, to BP's 3.1mm per year? Just a bit more attention, please. Rignot also says ice loss of polar ice sheets accelerates at a rate of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2, which makes 0.101 ± 0.006 mm/yr2 (and 2006 was five years ago). Also, he happens to mentions GIC (Glaciers & Ica Caps) which add another 402 ± 95 Gt/yr in 2006, that is, 1.1 ± 0.3 mm/yr. Also with acceleration of course, 11.8 ± 6 Gt/yr2 in this case, that is, 0.033 ± 0.014 mm/yr2. Go figure. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:31 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Eric the Red Thanks for stating my point better than me. I honestly want to know about the ecosystems that are definitely in danger due to SLR, not the ones that may be. It is a much more prudent path to take to address issues that may arise. SLR is going to be slow in human terms regardless of how fast it may be in geological terms. And, again, let me state that there are an awful lot of actions that we should be doing anyway that are helpful for the "health" of this planet. Many of those actions would be beneficial in reducing CO2 emissions. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:26 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Scaddenp@58 What country do you live in? How do you plan on assessing how much to "bill" each country? How will that cost be passed on to the average citizen? How will the procured funds be distributed? We can go on and on with these questions - but, I think its obvious that it is a practical impossibility. The USA might be tops on your list for "responsibility", but that is because we are a developed country that has industry. We make stuff for people worldwide, so based on your thought pattern anybody who buys our products needs to pay up too. Ain't going to happen. -
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP - what is refreshing here is to see you that you do have faith in the Argo network. I am working from memory here so correct me if I am wrong, but I understand your position on the evidence for global warming so far to be: Surface temperature records are wrong - it underestimates the UHI effect. Glacier/ice are melting due to black carbon, not increasing temperature Satellite LT measurements are way too complicated with too many corrections needed. Cant trust the results. GSL is rising only due to melting ice from black carbon - the rest of the rise is due to placement of tide stations and of course highly unreliable satellite measurement. So, if after 15 years, say 2020, of full coverage argo network (so full sun cycle is sampled), and it shows OHC continuing to increase, will you accept that we have global warming? - or will you then decide that Argo network is flawed? In short, is there any conceivable data that would cause you to change your mind? -
Berényi Péter at 07:16 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#74 KR at 05:43 AM on 1 August, 2011 Hence your statement [...] is quite puzzling Would you please read first what was being said? For calculating deceleration (with error bars, −0.1 ± 0.03 mm/yr2) for GSL, I have used the entire satellite record, which spans 18.3249 years at the moment. The six year period was chosen for land based ice melt rates, relying on Rignot 2011, it seems wrongly, because their estimates are unrealistically high. Even in this case I have used their entire dataset and restricted the estimates to 2005-2010 only because Von Schuckmann & Le Traon uses that specific (too short) period in their paper. the basic physics of the greenhouse effect It is off-topic here, but basic physics predicts a much lower rate of warming. It can only be made high by playing with feedbacks, which is not basic physics. -
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Pirate - moving is not cost free (especially if it say a slum in Dacca). And this "until the next ice age" - even without extra CO2, another ice age isnt expected for around 50,000 year (see Berger & Loutre 2002. On top of that, it's not clear that climate will go into ice age with CO2 at 400ppm. This looks like a "look squirrel" to avoid answering questions about taking responsibility. And for "we must adapt" - adapting to 20cm of sealevel is a lot easier than adapting to 1m. Its a choice - mitigate the emission or take responsibility for the costs of adaption. -
Eric the Red at 06:52 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Sphaerica, I think you are dodging pirate's question. Just because the possibilty of something happening exists, does mean that drastic measures should be taken now to prevent it. I think he has a legitimate issue. Is there an ecosystem that is threatened by current SLR? If so, then we can take steps to counter the threat. Absent any specifics, the only general reply is to move away from the coast, or at least far enough so that if the seas were to rise by a foot in your lifetime, you will not be negatively affected. -
Berényi Péter at 06:44 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#58 Rob Painting at 08:23 AM on 31 July, 2011 That's curious Ken, for the best part of 18 months at least you have been proclaiming the ARGO dataset as the best measure of ocean heat content (it is - but still has issues to be resolved), but now it is clear that the oceans are still warming, albeit at a slower rate than the 1990's, the ARGO floats are now worthless? They are certainly not worthless. And as I have already pointed out, coverage was virtually global by the end of 2003 (but not before). It got denser later on, but that's another question which can be dealt with using larger error bars for the early period. Systematic errors due to the gaping hole in the Southern ocean (and to a smaller extent elsewhere) are gone by that time. So it is rather hard to justify cutting data at the beginning of 2005 as Von Schuckmann & Le Traon do. The issue for the last 18 months was with using ARGO data from 2002-2003, when coverage was still poor to justify the huge jump of estimated OHC in late 2002 − early 2003, so that's another question. Unfortunately I can not access the full Argo database online at the moment, but the NOAA NODC OCL Global Ocean Heat Content page provides data for the upper 700 m of oceans (from the beginning of 1955, but since about 2003 their data are derived almost exclusively from ARGO). This dataset is based on Levitus 2009. They also provide proper error bars, so it is possible to calculate rate of warming for this layer for seven years between 2004-2010. It is 0.088 ± 0.076 × 1022 J/year, which is 0.077 ± 0.067 W/m2 if projected to the ocean surface (as Von Schuckmann & Le Traon do) or 0.055 ± 0.047 W/m2 if projected to the entire surface, which is certainly better, as it is directly comparable to TOA (Top of Atmosphere) radiative imbalance. Even if we suppose twice as much heat was sequestered below 700 m, it is still only ~0.17 W/m2, which is less than half of their figure for 2005-2010 & 10-1500 m (0.39 ± 0.07 W/m2). If adding a single year to the data makes such a huge difference, one can hardly say with any certainty that Von Schuckmann & Le Traon have proven that the oceans are still warming at any specific rate. BTW, for 2006-2010 the Levitus data give −0.011 ± 0.109 × 1022 J/year (for the upper 700 m), which is -0.007 ± 0.068 W/m2 globally, so it is very hard to refrain from the notion the specific starting year 2005 was cherry-picked on purpose. -
Publicola at 06:12 AM on 1 August 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: "That is a false and distorted context of what I stated." Again no, it is not. Let me break this down for you again, Poptech: 1. I asked you how you knew that some articles that are on your list of purportedly "peer reviewed" papers were in fact peer reviewed. [1] 2. You responded by saying "because" said articles "can be" peer reviewed. [2] HTH. -------------------------------------- [1] Me: "Your joke of a list counts multiple "viewpoint " - aka OpEd - articles authored by non-natura l scientist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. How do you know that said articles have been peer reviewed? " [2] Poptech: "Because these can be and you have not demonstrated otherwise. " http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html -
Pete Dunkelberg at 06:10 AM on 1 August 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
UAH press release on Spencer & Braswell 2011 - more like the paper than the other press material. -
dana1981 at 05:49 AM on 1 August 2011Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
also Sphaerica, I'm trying to simplify their post into a Basic rebuttal, and I'm going to make use of your bullet points in comment #87, if you don't mind. Thanks! -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - From Leuliette & Willis (2011), "Because of both uncertainties in the observational systems and interannual variations, it has been estimated that a minimum of 10 years is necessary to meaningfully interpret global trends in sea level rise and its components" They also note that "Global mean sea level change from TOPE X/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 has had a relatively consistent trend of 3.2 ± 0.8 mm/yr over 18 years." Hence your statement that "rate changing from 2.3 to 3.1 mm/year between 2005 and 2011" (a six year period, not 10) is quite puzzling. You have certainly not presented a refutation of Von Schuckmann & Le Traon. If anything, your posts point to the differences in opinion about the GIA values - Von Schuckmann & Le Traon use one rate for their calculations, Leuliette (page 5) uses a different one with a 1 mm/y difference. There are certainly going to be short term variances in OHC trends. There's also going to be changes in forcings, such as Asian aerosols over the last decade. None of this significantly affects the long term path we've chosen (CO2 increases) that includes a great deal of warming over the next century and then some, sea level rise effects on many coastlines (and here we are, essentially a littoral species according to population distributions), and serious costs for adaptation. You've misrepresented L&W 2011, cherry-picked some short term data to claim a major decrease in warming rates, assume that this will continue for a significant period of time, and assert that "In this case current rate of ocean warming is 0.2°C/century and land based ice is not in immediate peril. I can live with that." This is notably contradicted by observed accelerating land based ice melt rates (so so many references), ARGO OHC data, and the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. It amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "Lalalala...". While I dislike characterizing it as such, this is an awful lot of work put into denial. -
dana1981 at 05:24 AM on 1 August 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Thanks for the details spencerd. As I noted in the article, right-wing American think tanks employ the same sorts of shenanigans and Monckton does to inflate the actual costs of this proposed climate legislation. In the US, serious estimates put the costs of previously passed legislation at somewhere around $100 per average household per year as well. This of course doesn't account for the money saved by reducing the effects of climate change. -
dana1981 at 05:20 AM on 1 August 2011Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
We'll be re-posting the RealClimate article by Trenberth and Fasullo in the near future. -
Berényi Péter at 04:49 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#71 Albatross at 02:15 AM on 1 August, 2011 BP has also repeatedly ignored the challenge made to him by KR and me to "As Albatross asked earlier, do you have any peer reviewed references that contradict Von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011?" No need for that. Leuliette & Willis (2011), cited by #62 Rob Painting already refutes Rignot's exaggerated claim of sea level rise by melting land based ice (rate changing from 2.3 to 3.1 mm/year between 2005 and 2011). Actually not even half that value is true (according to Leuliette & Willis), which allows for some mild warming below 700 m by increased deep turbulent mixing indeed. So, just for the record: ice is not melting that fast. _I also notice my reply to #51 Albatross has disappeared. It means I am supposed to tolerate insults from Albatross, but even mild irony is unacceptable if it is directed to him. Understood, reworded version follows.#51 Albatross at 16:37 PM on 30 July, 2011 To assert that [current rate of ocean warming is 0.2°C/century] is absurd, and just bad science period. Even with Trenberth's 0.9 W/m2 imbalance at TOA (which was never based on actual measurements, but on virtual "experiments" performed on computational climate models and which is ruled out by now) warming rate of oceans is still at most 0.4°C/century.In order to get dangerous warming in a century (as projected by IPCC) one has to find a way to maintain ~3°C more temperature difference between the oceans and the surface than there is today. Unfortunately the more vigorous deep turbulent mixing is supposed to be, the more impossible it seems to achieve that goal. And Von Schuckmann & Le Traon are trying to push exactly that process to the limit.Response:[DB] Your implications of fraud and malfeasance are insulting, revolting and disturbing (in no particular order), and are a violation of the Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 04:47 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Muon@50 Well, obviously moving away from the water's edge as it continues it's inexorable creep upwards is a start. That is until the next ice age starts and then the land can be reclaimed. It's not "we can adapt", it's about "we must adapt." I am interested in hearing your ideas.Response:[DB] "Well, obviously moving away from the water's edge as it continues it's inexorable creep upwards is a start. That is until the next ice age starts and then the land can be reclaimed."
So your suggestion is to walk uphill for the next 60,000+ years...some, obviously, will run out of "uphill" and will need a boat...
-
Albatross at 02:39 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Hi Rob @68, Re the divergence. I'm not sure-- a problem with the ARGO data post 2009? -
Albatross at 02:15 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP has still not acknowledged and corrected his colossal error @9 (an error that is still being happily perpetuated by fellow "skeptics" despite it being brought to their attention a couple of times up thread),and BP has also repeatedly ignored the challenge made to him by KR and me to "As Albatross asked earlier, do you have any peer reviewed references that contradict Von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011?. Instead, we get more pontification and hand waving from BP....this pattern by "skeptics" of hi-jacking threads and throwing them off topic is becoming incredibly tiresome. -
Berényi Péter at 01:43 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#42 Rob Painting at 21:29 PM on 29 July, 2011 They [Von Schuckmann and Le Traon] use a more complete dataset and different analysis (infilling missing profiles with 'averaged anomalies' as opposed to zero anomaly infilling employed by Lyman et al for instance) and measure deeper into the ocean. 10-1500 metres, you will note, includes 690 metres of the top 700 metres of ocean. That's not the point. Both Levitus and Schuckmann provide error bars for their estimates. If these are correct, the 0.39 ± 0.07 W/m2 average of the latter study for period 2005-2010 and depth range 10-1500 m can be divided to 0.14 ± 0.06 W/mm2 imbalance for the upper 700 m and 0.25 ± 0.09 W/mm2 for the rest (700-1500 m). It means almost twice as much heat went into the lower layer then into the upper one, while their mass is pretty similar. It begs some explanation, doesn't it? This derivation does not depend on the details of the two studies, just on the estimates and error bars, and on the assumption their errors are independent of each other. If it is your opinion that the Levitus data are flawed in some manner and their estimate (including error bars) for the upper 700 m is off, please say so. And, of course, substantiate your claim. By the way, it would be much easier to evaluate the paper if they provided that breakdown themselves in units directly comparable to those used in other studies or at least published their supplementary data & algorithms online that could be used to do the job independently. Unfortunately they have chosen another course. _ While we are into this OHC thing, some words about how on earth can heat get down to the abyss at all are in order. The first thing to note is that the MOC (Meridional Overturning Circulation) is not a heat engine. That is, it does not convert temperature differences into mechanical energy to keep ocean currents moving, but it is the other way around. It depends on some external mechanical energy source to maintain circulation and redistribute heat. If a body of fluid in a gravitational field (like the oceans) is both heated and cooled at different places but at the same gravitational potential (e.g. at the surface on low and high latitudes respectively), that would not produce any macroscopic flow whatsoever. There are two caveats to this proposition. 1. Visible light (sunlight) and especially UV can penetrate into the ocean to some depth (a couple of hundred meters at most), so heating in fact happens at a somewhat lower geopotential than cooling, which is restricted to the surface (down to several meters, if waves are taken into account). But it would provide for a very shallow circulation only, not the kind of deep overturning observed. Also, it is worth noting that thermal infrared ("back radiation") can not penetrate into seawater at all (several mm at most). 2. There is also heating at depth, by geothermal heat flux, which is about 0.1 W/m2 averaged over the entire seafloor (and 0.04 W/m2 over the continents). In some regions (for example at the boundaries of the Nazca plate, South Eastern Pacific) it can be as high as 0.3 W/m2. This heating happens at the right geopotential (at the bottom), so it does produce overturning, albeit at a much slower rate than observed. Needless to say heat conductivity of seawater is so low, that by conduction alone (with no macroscopic flow) it would take ages for heat to get down to the abyss from the surface. There are parts of MOC that work as a heat engine indeed. Downwelling of cold saline water in polar regions is such an exception. However, if there were no other processes at work in other regions, the abyss would eventually get saturated with very cold water of high salinity and downwelling would stop altogether. Or rather, it would switch to the much slower rate permitted by geothermal heating alone. We should also note this part of the so called thermohaline circulation does not add heat to the abyss, but removes it from there. Currently deep water production is restricted to two distinct regions of the oceans. One is where the North Atlantic joins the Arctic ocean, the other is along the Antarctic coastline. In theory it could also happen in the North Pacific, but in fact it does not, for the salinity is too low there and the coastline is not cold enough. Details of the physics are somewhat different in the North and the South though. The North Atlantic Drift carries ample quantities of warm, highly saline water into the Arctic ocean (the high salinity is leftover of evaporation), which cools down there and when it gets next to freezing (the most dense state of seawater), it sinks. It is an intermittent process, restricted to "chimneys" (of diameter ~100 km and lifetime of several weeks) in the open ocean. Please note the heat carried to the polar region this way is lost to the atmosphere entirely, the cold saline water sinks to the bottom without it. This heat subsequently is radiated out to space, as that is the only heat reservoir around which is colder (-270°C). Antarctica is a special place. No warm current gets near to the continent, so salinity of seawater there is inherently lower than in the Northern Atlantic. On the other hand along the coastline, especially in winter, extremely cold gale force katabatic winds descend from the plateau creating polynyas (open water expanses) by blowing sea ice away. High chilly winds coupled with open water provide for vigorous cooling of water masses (because total area of air-sea interface is huge, think of sea spray) and as sea ice starts to form, salinity also increases by brine exclusion. Cold dense water then descends to the abyss along the continental slope. At the underside of great Antarctic ice shelves even super-cooled water is formed. Its potential temperature is below freezing, that is, it only stays fluid because of pressure, it would freeze if raised to the surface. In general abyssal water of Antarctic origin is somewhat colder but less salty than its Arctic cousin. But still, we need an energy source to keep the engine going. In other words, abyssal waters have to be warmed up and diluted in order to be able to raise somewhere and make room for more cold, dense polar water. The process that does exactly that is supposed to be deep turbulent mixing, driven by external mechanical energy sources like tides and winds. Tidal forcing is a considerable source of mixing, but it is deterministic and independent of all other forcings on climate. It is also cyclic, not exactly, but close enough. The Metonic cycle (the period the National Tidal Datum Epoch [NTDE] of the U.S. is based on) is 19 years long. Or more precisely it is 235 synodic months which is 1h 38' longer than 19 tropical years. The nodal cycle of lunar orbit happens to be only slightly shorter than that (18.5996 years). It means if one is looking for trends in deep turbulent mixing, it is best to consider multiples of the Metonic cycle. Epochs shorter than that (like 6 years) are to be considered as a last resort only if one does not have data with longer timespan. Even then some caution is in order, to filter out tidal effects on trends as much as possible (the same is true for sea level studies). The other source is internal waves excited by winds. One can see that distribution of wind power is extremely uneven on the surface of Earth.
It is concentrated in three regions, the Southern ocean, the Norh Pacific and the Norh Atlantic. Of these winds in the south are the most intense by far (and surprisingly mild over the continents).
The only problem remaining is that in the open ocean turbulent mixing is measured to be at least an order of magnitude smaller than needed to maintain the observed flows in MOC.
The solution seems to be there are narrow regions where topography of the bottom is very complex, like over mid ocean ridges or certain rugged continental slopes where deep turbulent mixing can be up to two, sometimes even three orders of magnitude higher than average. However, these sites are poorly known and most are not even identified yet.
So, the very energy source driving MOC and making thermohaline downwelling possible is not well constrained. It is also one of the (many) weak points of GCMs (General Circulation Models). This process is represented in them only through parametrization and even if we knew much better the process going on in real oceans, their too coarse resolution could not accommodate to the small scale vigorous and probably intermittent mixing which characterizes it.
Anyway, the take home message is that MOC (Meridional Overturning Circulation), consequently heat exchange between the surface and abyss is not driven by temperature differences, but external mechanical energy sources.
Of course winds (unlike tides) are not independent of climate (they are driven by a heat engine, as the atmosphere is mostly heated from below and cooled from above), but in this respect one has to study winds over the southern ocean first (roaring forties & stormy fifties), as according to some estimates up to 80% of deep turbulent mixing happens here (or rather, in restricted sub-regions of it).
Therefore if one is interested in heat transport to the lower layers of oceans, one should pay close attention to those remote and alien waters.
-
Rob Painting at 01:37 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albie - check out the graph at @ 62. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? (Hint: the divergence) -
Rob Painting at 01:27 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albie @ 64 - Whoops, corrected. The funny thing is the 1/58th thing (note no error bars) is actually discussed in Leuliette & Miller (2011). Of course BP's calculations and linear mindset fail to account for the large annual fluctuations in both SLR and the steric component. I guess they can't be happening either? -
Albatross at 01:27 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Hi Rob @65, We cross posted, and then I saw that we have both identified the same glaring error in their reasoning.... -
Albatross at 01:23 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Ken @63, "Land Ice melt was equal to a mass increase +3.1mm/yr" Wrong. You and BP are misrepresenting Rignot et al.'s (2011) results. -
Rob Painting at 01:19 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KL - -
Albatross at 01:08 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob @61 and 62, Thanks Rob, very interesting and not much reason to support BP's optimism that the alleged current rate of warming of 0.02 C/decade will continue, well he does not say how long he expects that to continue for, but given that he can "live" with that, one can probably assume it is on the order of decades. These vague, non-committal statements made by "skeptics" are really not helpful or constructive. "The thermal component on sea level rise does appear to have declined in the last decade" I think that you meant to say for the 2005-2010 period the steric contribution may have leveled off or decreased slightly (at least according to Leuliette and Willis, 2011) but is is difficult to say b/c of the relatively large error bars (there is so much overlap when one allows for uncertainties)-- all the more reason not to be making bold assertions that the "oceans are cooling" or that there is a "fundamental inconsistency in the AGW science" based on 5-6 years of noisy data derived from different observations platforms. As I mentioned earlier, Hansen et al. (2011) has also done some accounting for 2005-2010, and his number are very different from the amateur efforts here. Here are the estimated ranges in relative contributions for the 2005-2010 period: Ice melt: +1.27 to + 2.4 mm/yr Abyssal oceans and southern oceans: 0.156 mm/yr Steric rise: +0.55 to 0.83 mm/yr Total: +2.0 mm/yr to +3.4 mm/yr (mean near +2.7 mm/yr). Now, satellite GSL increase for the same period was +1.4 to +3.0 mm/yr (mean +2.2 mm/yr), data from Leuliette and Willis (2011). Pretty good agreement given the limitations of the observations. Now consider the that 'skeptics' here are alleging that for the same period the steric contribution was significantly negative (??)...well, two published papers by experts in the field disagree with that nonsensical assertion. PS: And this claim "however as BP pointed out if you can concentrate the heat into melting land ice - you only need 1/58th the amount to get a unit rise in sea level compared with thermally expanding the oceans.", seems to support the findings of the works that you cited concerning GSL during the last interglacial, not challenge them. -
muoncounter at 00:45 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp#51: "it's not hard to make an assessment for what 50-80cm of sealevel rise will do locally." Those sorts of assessments already exist: The impact of sea level rise on coastal flooding is amply demonstrated by comparing Hurricane Isabel of 2003 with another major storm: the hurricane of August 1933, widely regarded as the “storm of the century” for Hampton Roads. The 1933 hurricane was more powerful than Isabel and produced a storm surge (rise in water level due to the effects of the storm) of 1.8 m (5.8 feet) as compared to 1.5 m (4.8 feet) for Hurricane Isabel in Hampton Roads. Yet the maximum water level or storm tide (sum of the storm surge and the astronomical tide) for both storms was about the same: 2.4 m (8.0 feet) for the 1933 hurricane and 2.4 m (7.9 feet) for Isabel. The reason the weaker of the two storms produced an equivalent storm tide is that monthly mean sea level during Isabel stood about 0.43 m (1.4 feet) higher than the monthly mean during the August 1933 hurricane. Most of the difference is due to sea level rise during the 70 years between these two storms. -- emphasis added Hurricane Isabel was 'only' Cat 2 at landfall in North Carolina (south of the Hampton Roads, Virginia location discussed above); the Outer Banks storm of 1933 was Cat 3 at its first landfall in about the same location. Regarding Isabel's effects on Virginia alone: The hurricane caused about $1.85 billion (2003 USD, $2.17 billion 2008 USD) in damage and 36 deaths in the state — 10 directly from the storm's effects and 26 indirectly related. Too bad those folks just didn't adapt. -
Ken Lambert at 23:42 PM on 31 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob Painting #58 and #62 You have nearly answered your own question at #62. BP was pointing out that three sea level equivalent measures were inconsistent with the oceans gaining heat. Land Ice melt was equal to a mass increase +3.1mm/yr, Satellite SLR was equal to +2.3mm/yr so therefore steric rise must be negative (-1.1mm/yr if isostatic rebound is included). Therefore these measurements do not support a rise in OHC. That does not mean that any measurement is gold plated. Argo might be right in measuring a 0.39W/sq.m OHC increase and the satellite SLR wrong of the ice melt estimate wrong. You at #61 are now supporting the point with references that in last interglacial the large mass rise from Antarctica occurred with a negligible steric rise. The conclusion from that is during in the last interglacial all the heat went into ice melt and little into warming the oceans. A feasible transport mechanism for the heat would be needed - however as BP pointed out if you can concentrate the heat into melting land ice - you only need 1/58th the amount to get a unit rise in sea level compared with thermally expanding the oceans. Over to you for the feasible transport mechanism. -
muoncounter at 23:08 PM on 31 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Agnostic#52: "there us no effective defence against SLR which is continuous" The only defense I've heard continuously on this thread is a variant of 'I can't see it happening to me right now' aka 'it's not my problem'. A series of talks given at an SLR conference in the US last year are available here. These slide shows are well worth a browse. One author described the economic effects to the Galveston Bay area of 0.69m and 1.5m SLR -- when combined with a 100 year storm. That's exactly the scenario we've been labeling 'conservative;' the results will cripple the region's economy (which is already not doing too well). Another author stressed the need to begin making decisions now. That's not going to happen if the prevailing attitude is a hand-waving 'we can adapt.' But the east bank of New Orleans is resting easier behind what they are calling a 100 year floodwall; claims by the Army Corps of Engineers (who designed it - as well as the prior failed levees/canal system) are that they included both SLR and subsidence potential in their calculations. So with enough money, concrete and 6 years of hard work, it seems possible to defend one location. Unfortunately for the surrounding area, doesn't a wall in one spot just mean more flooding someplace else? -
neilrieck at 23:07 PM on 31 July 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
I stumbled onto some very troubling information recently which indicates that (on average) the optimum temperature for photosynthesis in C3 plants is 76F (24.4C) and that a 10% drop in photosynthesis occurs for every degree F until 86 F (30C) is reached. At this point the stoma are 100% closed to prevent water loss. This means that the CO2 argument "high CO2 is good for plants" is false since higher CO2 levels will produce higher temperatures thus lowering agricultural productivity. The results of my Internet-based research (if you can call it research) can be viewed here: http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/world_population_limit.html I am now very worried that "climate change" combined with "the human population very close to 7 billion" places human culture in very grave danger. When food becomes less available, immune systems will become compromised resulting in pandemics of greater amplitude and frequency. Neil Rieck Kitchener / Waterloo / Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. -
chris at 21:42 PM on 31 July 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
Perhaps the most interesting/concerning thing is the manner that otherwise smart people are willing to view science through ideological blinkers in support of extreme political views - this applies in spades to those of a libertarian bent. A shame considering that his book "Genome" is IMHO one of the best bits of popular science writing of recent times. I suppose the apparent disconnect between excellent writing of Genome and his dreary and "self-debunked" laissez-faire views that seem to underlie his misrepresentation of climate science, results from the former (description and impacts of genomic discoveries) being both broadly politically-neutral, and amenable to the rather reductionist/dissectionist approach he uses so well....whereas the latter (understanding and honest description of climate science) requires a rather broader and dispassionate approach which is simply incompatible with his politics. Incidentally I'm not familiar enough with Ridley's political views to know whether he considers publically funded science (which forms the mainstay of the research described in "Genome") to be part of the "parasitic bureacracy"....any pointers on that issue form his writing? -
Rob Painting at 20:39 PM on 31 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Sea level budget over the 2005-2010 period (half of 2010 anyway):
Black line is the sea level as observed by satellite altimetry, blue line is the steric (expansion due to warming), red is the ocean mass according to GRACE gravity satellites, and purple is the steric and mass combined. So a reasonable match considering the uncertainty in the datasets.
Note the steric component tailing off.
See: Balancing the Sea Level Budget - Leuliette & Willis (2011)
There's a whole bunch of recent discussion papers at the Oceanographic Society magazine in the link above - for any interested readers.
-
Rob Painting at 19:57 PM on 31 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross - I never expect to convince a faux skeptic, but genuine skeptics can't help but be convinced that global warming is real, it's happening now, and will be a huuuuge problem. But BP does raise an extremely worrying point, one I only hinted at in the post. The thermal component of sea level rise does appear to have slowed in the last decade. Yes, I know short datasets and large uncertainty and all that, but it seems to be the case. Sea level rise on the other hand continues to rise, confirming the accelerated melt observed on the Greenland and West Antarctic icesheets i.e. ice melt has made up a larger proportion of the sea level rise in the 'noughties'. So why is it worrying?. See the paper referenced in this post: Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?. The Role of Ocean Thermal Expansion in Last Interglacial Sea Level Rise - McKay (2011) I'll cut to the chase: "Taken together, the model and paleoceanographic data imply a minimal contribution of ocean thermal expansion to LIG sea level rise above present day. Uncertainty remains, but it seems unlikely that thermosteric sea level rise exceeded 0.4±0.3 m during the LIG. This constraint, along with estimates of the sea level contributions from the Greenland Ice Sheet, glaciers and ice caps, implies that 4.1 to 5.8 m of sea level rise during the Last Interglacial period was derived from the Antarctic Ice Sheet. These results reemphasize the concern that both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets may be more sensitive to temperature than widely thought." And note this recent paper on the Greenland icesheet: Sr-Nd-Pb Isotope Evidence for Ice-Sheet Presence on Southern Greenland During the Last Interglacial - Colville (2011) "These results allow the evaluation of a suite of GIS models and are consistent with a GIS contribution of 1.6 to 2.2 meters to the ≥4-meter LIG sea-level highstand, requiring a significant sea-level contribution from the Antarctic Ice Sheet." You'll note a great deal of coherency between the papers I'm referencing -the observations seem to fit. The last paper is more worrisome, even in the last interglacial, when the Northern Hemisphere summer saw the brunt of the warming, most of the melt contributing to SLR came from Antarctica. -
Killian at 18:44 PM on 31 July 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
So many errors, so little interest in addressing them all... First, Ridley accepts the premise economics is scientific and ignores that it is practically useless due to not accepting the role of resources. I refer him to Steve Keen as one of the few economists who appears to be sane. Second, Ridley essentially accepts people are generous while ignoring over 80 years of intentional conditioning to spend and consume. Third, he ignores that we have also raised the individual above the group for centuries and conned ourselves into believing thus it has always been and thus must it always be. This, of course, ignores that the only sustainable cultures are aboriginal, group-centered, non-consumptive, based entirely on what the ecosystem can provide with a little assistance, and are rooted in shared experience. The simplest rebuttal of Ridley on these scores is the lowest tax rates, least regulation and greatest profits in our history have resulted in the beginning of the end of this era. As for climate, seriously, if he is so illiterate in science that a 40% reduction in plankton is a conspiracy, can anyone take him seriously? And the pejorative turns of phrase regarding issues of common sense identifies him as an ideology-driven man. He is a shining example of the phenomenon described in "The Authoritarians." And when crop reductions of 3% are already being realized due to climate stressors, can we not laugh at his failure to understand the law of the Minimum? For all his education and - I'll take your word for it - brilliance, to cite a single component of extremely complex systems (billions of biota in a handful of soil, e.g.) as something that will save us all is rather embarrassing for him. I don't think this guy is a systems thinker. Well, that's enough. More where that came from, though. -
Albatross at 16:45 PM on 31 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob @58, It is unfortunate that Ken cannot see the absurdity of BP's claim that I quoted above. If people wish to see a correct accounting of the terms in Question then please read Hansen et al. (2011) that Sidd linked to above @54. It is a long document but I highly recommend that people interested in this issue read the paper-- it is an excellent investment of one's time. SteveS @56, Thanks, very interesting. You will most likely not convince BP or Ken though, they will most likely just brush it off or glibly dismiss it. -
bill4344 at 16:45 PM on 31 July 2011An experiment into science blogging
Is it kosher to draw attention to this, BTW? Or should it just be left to those who'd find it in the ordinary course of things? -
bill4344 at 16:38 PM on 31 July 2011An experiment into science blogging
You don't have a scriptblocker running by any chance, lukeness? Because I counted 12 comments! I figure you'd have to at least allow SkepticalScience itself and perhaps googleapis, judging from a quick check of my own NoScript list for this site. -
scaddenp at 15:15 PM on 31 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Pirate - just to be clearer, supposing you are wrong - sealevel rise causes significant costs for adaptation - do you accept the principle that your country should be taking responsibility for your countries share of the emissions that caused the problem? This is a question of principle not science - that of assuming responsibility for actions. -
lukeness at 15:09 PM on 31 July 2011An experiment into science blogging
It seems to me that the questions regarding comments weren't meaningful, since I couldn't see any comments when I read the post. -
Riduna at 14:56 PM on 31 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Muoncounter Your assessment of the effects of SLR are spot-on, particularly the certainty that they will cause flooding of low coastal land and river deltas – often among the more heavily populated areas of the planet and certainly among the major food producing areas. The effects on a global population of 10 billion, of whom 7 billion now live in such areas, is not difficult to imagine. What intrigues me is that so many commentators assume that the rate of SLR is either static or linear. It can be neither. SLR is primarily caused by loss of land based snow and ice, particularly polar ice. Even a casual glance at polar ice mass loss data should be sufficient to show that the rate of loss is non-linear, increasing and expected to go on increasing for the rest of this century. Consequently SLR will continue to increase and do so at an increasing rate this century and for centuries to come. The question is how much will it rise by 2100? The answer varies from 1-5m depending on which authority you listen to. What is clear is that even a conservative estimate of 1m SLR by 2100 has the potential to be tremendously damaging since there us no effective defence against SLR which is continuous – and it is certainly not going to stop in 2100. -
scaddenp at 12:13 PM on 31 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Pirate, it's not hard to make an assessment for what 50-80cm of sealevel rise will do locally. Since is low-end of expectation, I take it you arent actually in denial that this will happen? It's real easy to ignore sealevel effects if your position is that it is not happening. This was subject of public meeting for our city who are already battling a number issues (coastal erosion, salt water excursion in low lying farmland and rising water table in southern suburbs). 50-80cm is no cause for panic but it is a considerable cost to the city and complicated because you have to solve a number of problems all at the same time. Who's paying? Making pious statements about problems of people living on unstable areas is pure diversion. We are only talking about EXTRA pressure created by sealevel rise. This in addition to existing problems. Fertile deltas are always going to be heavily populated. Now lets look at how much displacement from say 80cm of rise, divide by 100 years and work out the required immigration per year. Is your country prepared to take to avoid that conflict?
Prev 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 Next
