Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 Next
Comments 38701 to 38750:
-
Tom Curtis at 12:07 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
To put Vonnegut's discussion of Palau into perspective, the from the supplementary material of the paper, we find that site 9, the most acidic of the sites examined, has a pH of 7.84 (See Table S1). Site 9 certainly has a very healthy coral community, as shown by this picture of the site:
For perspective, however, that should be compared to the coral from Milne Bay, Papua/New Guinea discussed in Fabricius et al, 2011:
The most comparable site from Fabricius et al is site b, with a pH of 7.8-8. Although comparable in pH, clearly the Nassau site 9 is thriving far better than site b in Milne Bay (a point I will return to). However, equally, as the pH continues to fall, corals find it still harder to survive, until they die out completely. Ocean pH is projected to fall well below 7.8 by 2100 with high level emission scenarios. Consequently the fact that coral in Palau can survive at relatively low pH is little long term comfort without mitigation of emissions.
It should be noted that site 9 from Palau, like site B from Milne Bay, has no branching corals, ie, the corals most vulnerable to ocean acidification. Ocean acidity, therefore, is still having an effect in Palau. Some local feature, however, is allowing some corals to still continue to thrive, establishing the basis for a thriving marine community.
There are some further interesting nuances. Interestingly, the site at Milne Bay has the '... local traditional site name “Illi Illi Bua Bua” [which] translates to “Blowing Bubbles”' (Fabricius 2011, supplementary information). That traditional name indicates that the volcanic seep which creates the acidic conditions has existed for some time, possibly for centuries. In contrast, the unique conditions in Palau have existed for at least a few thousand of years, and potentially for as much as 8 thousand years. That difference is important. Biological organisms take time to adapt to new conditions. It is clear that in Milne Bay they have not adapted well. That is evidence that a century or two is not adequate time for an appropriate adaption. Palau indicates, on the other hand that several thousands of years are enough time for an adequate adaption (if not for branching corals). The problem is, with the rate of ocean acidification from anthropogenic emissions, corals do not have centuries within which to adapt, but mere decades. Therefore the Milne Bay example is far more likely to be informative about the probable impacts on corals globally than are the those at Palau.
Finally, the situation is grave even for the corals at Palau. That is because they are currently adapted to pH levels in the lagoons equivalent to the expected open ocean pH in a hundred years. That pH, however, is lowered (ie, more acidic) relative to the the current pH in the open ocean near Palau. Presumably, in a hundred years the pH in the lagoons will be lower than the pH in the open ocean withing 100 years as well. That means, the Palau corals will face pH levels significantly lower than those they currently face, with mere decades to adapt when many centuries, and possible more are required to adapt to that reduced pH - if it is possible.
So, Vonnegut's read on the Palau corals depends on focussing on one fact only. He does not consider the entire context, either chemically, or biologically. It is only thate very limited view of the evidence that allows him to avoid its implications.
-
ubrew12 at 11:56 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Denier inflation alert: Given the stunning retreat of summer Arctic Ice in the last 20 years, why is the 'fact' that ice didn't disappear COMPLETELY in 2013 some kind of 'proof' that Global Warming is a hoax? Why, if the five hottest years in known history occurred since the turn of this century (according to Cowtan & Way's analysis), yet temperatures didn't increase as much as they did between 1978 and 1998, is this proof that Global Warming is a hoax?
The value of 'Doubt is our Product' denialism is the assumption that 'they' own the goalposts, and will move them whereever they want. Because, don't ya know, they are just THAT kind of sticklers for perfection. All I can say is: I want THAT job!
I can't believe the number of deniers who have told me the Climate Models are broken. Who have no Climate Models, and can't point to any, despite being backed by the most profitable industry in the history of capitalism, that models EVERYTHING, from oil tanker designs, to oil fields, to chemical refineries, to pipelines, and for which Climate Change as an existential threat to its profitability. No competing Climate models of any kind.
This reminds me of Graffiti taggers. Someone else builds a bridge and people say 'its beautiful'. Then the tagger paints the bridge with his favorite swear word and points out 'no, its not'. And then, amazingly, some people start to agree with him...
-
chriskoz at 11:54 AM on 5 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
HK@52,
What I find most striking is the fact that even if the atmospheric warming in the last decade had continued at the same rate as before 2000 (0.2oC/decade), this would only add about 1 percent (!!) to the present energy imbalance.
If read literally - i.e. if atmospheric warming was higher, then Earth energy imbalance (TOA) would increase marginally, by 1% - it would contradict the basics of IR radiation theory. Increased atmospheric temperature results with more energy loss due to IR and that should lead to the decrease of global "energy imbalance", as defined in this article (TOA energy budget measured by satelites), contradicting your statement.
I read it as such but then I realised that of course by the "energy imbalance" you must mean the "measure of heat accumulation". Then your statement is true and supports your conclusion.
So beware to describe your concepts precisely, otherwise people like me won't understand you. Or worse: the denialists will pick up on your words and spin the story against you.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:46 AM on 5 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
jja @51, I am having a great deal of difficulty reproducing your results. Specifically, you have not specified an origin for your formulas discussed in previous posts, and using 0 AD (=1 BC) as the origin gives nonsense results using those formalas. Further, using your formula for the TOA flux of y=.1243*x^2 - .2485*x +.2175 does not yield sensible results for any choice of origin if I use years as the units of the x axis.
Can you please confirm that that is the correct formula, and specify units and origin for the x-axis?
-
Vonnegut at 09:31 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Palau’s rich marine biota include approximately 400 species of hard corals, 300 species of soft corals, 1400 species of reef fishes, 7 out of 9 of the world’s species of giant clams, thousands of other invertebrates (many still to be identified), the world’s most isolated colony of dugongs (a relative of the sea cow) and Micronesia’s only saltwater crocodiles. Terrestrial species include 1260 species of plants (including almost 200 endemics), 141 resident and migratory bird species (including 11 endemics), 5000 species of insects, and 40 species of freshwater fishes, including at least 4 endemics. Palau has the largest undisturbed forest and largest freshwater lake in Micronesia,, and 70 unique marine lakes
Its not so isolated that all the species there are unique.
Moderator Response:[PS] It would help your readers if you explained how your statement of facts progresses your argument.
-
joeygoze9259 at 08:56 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
chriskoz@18
If you want to argue on who is parsing words, the predictions made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 I was taking from Al Gore so if he failed to use the words "if the trend continues", I would correct your statement to say it was "simple and primative distortion of the scientific literature by alarmists" That "moronic slogan" was repeated by Al Gore, John Kerry and even as late as March of 2013, Paul Beckwith from the Sierra Club when he wrote "“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer (2013). An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean." Italics is added to refer to the year he is speaking about.
My issue with the above article is the characterization that the denial of a greenhouse effect existing at all is mainstream argument. That is simply not true. No one from any side of this discussion in the mainstream is arguing that CO2 can not trap heat or that No greenhouse effect exists. If there was NO greenhouse effect, then the Earth would be very inhospitable place to live.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please doument your source of information about the statements supposedly made by Al Gore, John Kerry, and Paul Beckwith.
BTW, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Paul Beckwith are not climate scientists.
-
grindupBaker at 08:48 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze #15 different bucket. I've computed with virtual certainty that it's more than 5 decimal orders of magnitude more incompetent to disbelieve a solid bit of physics, that school kids are demonstrating in videos, than to predict 2013 as the exact year in which the arctic will be ice free. Nonetheless, please provide a link to some of the persons who said that so that we can ponder it.
-
Vonnegut at 08:39 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
The good news stories are also scientific its just the google search function is still lacking.
I hope you also notice I refrain from posting links from the 'other' side.
Moderator Response:[PS] There is no problem whatsoever posting links "from the other side" - especially if what you are posting is links to published science. If you are being misled by misinformation sites, then many here will be happy to explain why you are reading is misleading.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 08:15 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, read the article, don't ignore the caveats, don't over interpret the observations as implying that OA may be OK when the article explicitly says not to. If you need to go through lots of bad news stories (or scientific studies to give them a more accurate name) to find a good news story, that is an indication that things are not looking too good. This doesn't mean the world will end, or the sky will fall in, that is hyperbole, but it does mean that there is likely to be a substantial problem, and there is no point in ignoring that fact.
One thing that is required is that you don't downplay the objections to your arguments in the way you did at post 60.
Wading through all the papers is part of a scientists job, and there is nothing they would like more than to prove that OA is OK, it would make them famous as well as being good news.
-
Vonnegut at 07:50 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@61 what does it take? Imagine how many scientists are looking to find a story which disproves OA? and how hard it is to wade thru all the papers which claim it may happen?
In other words its hard to find a good news story because you have to go thru all the bad news stories first.
-
chriskoz at 07:43 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze@15,
It needs to be clarified, that "forecasts made in 2007, 2008 and 2009 predicting an ice free arctic in 2013" were not any forcasts but simple & primitive distortion of scientific literature by deniers.
Wieslaw Maslowski predicted back in 2007 (before we saw the Sept 2007 minimum) "nearly ice free arctic" in 2016+/-3years, if the trend (as pointed by ubrew12@14) continues.
Deniers took Maslowski sentence, removed the "if the trend continues" clause, removed uncertainty, instead picking up the lower bound of uncertainty value (2013) and estaqblished it as the abosolutely certain, central value, thus creating the bogus, moronic slogan you're refering to.
So this "argument" by deniers is so silly that no scientist (inc maslowski) bothers to even listen, but we must debunk such arguments over and over because simple slogans "stick hard" to many minds. And unfortunately, many of those affected minds are supposed to take responsibility to reverse AGW (e.g. US Congress) but stick their heads in the sand.
There is an important need to debunk such slogans with basic science, and this article does good job with several of them related to IR.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 07:37 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut wrote "I posted reports to support my view but was told it was just one reef"
That is a misrepresentation of the discussion. You were told that the reef in question was deeply unrepresentative of reefs in general, and the article that you referenced explained that quite clearly, and therefore didn't support your point. The article itself contained that caveat explicitly.
You will excuse me if my patience wears somewhat thin. -
Vonnegut at 07:31 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
I posted reports to support my view but was told it was just one reef , its by far one of the best outdoor labs on the planet. I cant prove all ocean creatures will adapt just the same as no one can prove they wont, time will tell.
www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-02/palau-scientists-hope-theyve-found-coral-reef-save-all-coral-reefs
www.whoi.edu/news-release/palau-corals
news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/urchins-ocean-acidity-040813.html
-
michael sweet at 07:21 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut,
Your statements contain so many incorrect "facts" that it is difficult to know where to start.
Most fish that are kept 5C below or above the normal temperatures where they are from will stop reproducing and their immune systems will shut down. They will die in a year or two. They can survive tempory drops or increases in temperature much greater than that, but not long term.
You are simply not looking if you have not noticed any changes in flora and fauna in your area. It is difficult to find something you do not look for. Simply compare the changes in the USDA hardiness zones to see dramatic differences in temperature in just the last decade. Stone fruits do not produce fruit in many locations where they were traditionally grown. In my back yard I have over a dozen trees (includingfour jackfruit trees) that would have been killed by cold 30 years ago. Many of my neighbors have the same. The bark beatles that are killing forrests all over the country are caused by AGW. Open your eyes. Some animals and plants will survive. A few will thrive (I'm betting on the cockroaches). Most will be killed. Your trite comments about coelecanths when there are severe coral bleaching events year after year demonstrates your position. You need to provide evidence that an ecosystem will survive, not a single animal. There are myriad examples of coral reefs that are currently dying from the effects of heat and pH. While the Palau example was surprising, the overwhelming trend is down for coral worldwide. Look at the drought in the American West. Tell me where you live and I will give you examples of plants and animals that are dying off because of AGW.
You need to stop making statements like "small drop in pH" when you obviously have little knowledge of how pH works. You rarely provide evidence to support your wild claims. You claim you could post studies of creatures that would thrive, but you do not provide such evidence. When you go to look for it you will find the overwhelming majority of evidence is that things are doing worse. Read the background information so that you can understand what others are trying to tell you. Your basic science knowledge is sorely lacking.
-
Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
ubrew12 @13 and Jim. I sometimes counter the "but it's such a tiny amount" argument by suggesting the person posting it to try the same when a cop is giving them a roadside breathalyzer test. "But officer, that tiny fraction of alchohol by volume just CAN'T have affected my driving."
-
Vonnegut at 06:39 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@57 What can I say ive seen a small change in the mean global temp and noticed no difference, Ive seen a drop of 0.3 ph in my aquarium and seen no dramatic changes.
I dare say something somewhere may be affected, I just dont think the sky is falling, if you get my meaning?
Moderator Response:[PS] Enough of this please. The original article points to science on this subject; if you wish to dispute this, then please cite other science that supports your viewpoint (for which your fishbowl doesnt count). Unsupported assertions will be taken as sloganeering. You might also like to look "Its not bad" but please be prepared to back your position with data.
-
Composer99 at 06:34 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, if you are unable or unwilling to accept that small changes in global mean values of X (where X can be surface temperature, ocean pH, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what have you) can and do have very drastic consequences, then as far as I am concerned you are wasting your time, and ours.
-
Jim Eager at 06:30 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
It's almost certainly far less than 1.6 ppm, ubrew, since the dye itself is almost certainly itself a solution.
-
Vonnegut at 06:29 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
The evidence is all around us, the world didnt end, I could post studies of creatures that have been tested and survived but is that what you want?
While searching ive found it very odd that no test ive seen shows the ph of the water the fish was taken from. Almost like it wasnt significant.
Moderator Response:[PS] Statement like "the world didnt end" constitute straw man arguements unless you can point to predictions made by climate scientists that it would. Enough of this kind of rhetoric please.
And yes, pointers to studies that support your viewpoint are precisely what is useful to a constructive discussion.
-
joeygoze9259 at 06:20 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
I am referring to forecasts made in 2007, 2008 and 2009 predicting an ice free arctic in 2013. Clearly over the top and did not come true.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:10 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut wrote: "Well Dikran youre entitled to your opinion. Yes a permanent drop of 15 degrees would affect many creatures, I just dont think a small drop in ph will, thats all."
For which you provide no evidence whatsoever, and describe scientific studies that suggest otherwise as pointless. This is odd behaviour for someone who had previously stated today that they were "trying to learn thats all".
-
ubrew12 at 05:57 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze @12 said: "[Disbelieving the greenhouse effect] Goes in the same bucket as fringe arguments such as forecasts of the arctic being ice free in 2013" You can't seriously believe these are in the same bucket! The former is a refutation of basic Physics now two hundred years old. The latter is a forecast consistent with the last 30 year trend. There's a one minute stretch of this video that starts at 0:50, which shows the month by month trend in Arctic ice since the 1980s. Tell me you can look at that trend and NOT expect an ice free Arctic summer in the next decade or so!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYaubXBfVqo
-
mgardner at 05:56 AM on 5 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
MA rodger and grindup baker @16,17:
I'm looking for better images to clarify these concepts because words can be ambiguous, and used to the advantage of those trying to confuse and obfuscate.
1) "deep" But there is circulation in the 700m to say 1500m range, and there is much deeper, polar thermohaline, as well as some polar thermohaline in the upper range, if I understand correctly. The mechanisms are different, as well as the magnitudes (like temp differences) and consequently time scales.2) "fallacious argument that a mass cannot warm a warmer mass" Well, that's actually not a fallacy, if you are using conventional language. Which is what the mythologizers count on. You correctly point out the result of juxtaposing such masses, but it is a matter of the cooler mass cooling the warmer mass less than a cooler cooler mass would.
So, with that bit of confusing verbiage, I renew my request: Does anyone know of or could you create some kind of illustrations/animation that show masses (water) being displaced vertically when there is e.g. Eckman pumping, and something that shows net conventional heat transfer, but applied to this particular subject?
The idea being to preclude the obfuscation about both the qualitative aspects and the magnitudes.
Moderator Response:[PW] Unnecessary white space removed.
-
Vonnegut at 05:54 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
It raises the question at ph7 will it still be sea water? Will the salt fall out and freeze more readily?
-
ubrew12 at 05:47 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Something else is when Skeptics claim that 300 parts per MILLION is just too low a concentration to have any affect on 'darkening' the atmosphere to infrared light. Why, that's "next to NOTHING"! To that, I point out this ad:
http://www.poolcenter.com/p/party-pool-swimming-pool-color-dye
Yes, a mere 8oz of this dye will turn your crystal clear 20,000 gallon swimming pool black to visible radiation, twice over!
That's (half a cup/20,000 gallons)*(1gallon/16 cups) = 1.6 ppm. Oops, "Nothing" has magically become "Something"!
-
Vonnegut at 05:33 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Yes small drop, have you looked at how much ph changes in the sea?
-
joeygoze9259 at 05:33 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
This article mischaracterizes this out of the many skeptic arguments as..."One of the most ‘out there’ is that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist..." That is a fringe argument which goes against basic physics. It is not "one of the most out there" as characterized. As you note, not even Anthony Watts accepts this argument. Goes in the same bucket as fringe arguments such as forecasts of the arctic being ice free in 2013.
-
Composer99 at 05:17 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"Small drop"?
Vonnegut, pH is a logarithmic scale.
A 0.1 decrease in pH represents an enormous change in the acidity of ocean waters.
From Wikipedia:
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] [Emphasis mine.]
Wikipedia's sources are noted in the excerpt are:
(5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
(6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96–9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
(7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop [This is a PDF document that Wikpedia links directly to.]
-
DSL at 05:09 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
And the Honisch et al. bibliography is also a great place to go next.
-
DSL at 05:08 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, you seem to be searching for something that allows you to say, "gotcha!" and then walk away. If you were actually trying to understand how it all works, you'd lose the "you're so dumb" attitude and read over both the entire OA is not OK series and some of the more comprehensive studies, starting with Honisch et al. 2012. You'd then say, "ok, this is how I understand it . . . am I right?"
Instead, you're saying, "Ok, this is how I understand it, and I don't really care for your amateurish opinion on my understanding. It's clear that this is not happening or is not a problem. No, I don't need evidence. Or, rather, I need only need evidence to the extent that the evidence supports my pre-existing opinion."
I'll also point out that it's fine to play devil's advocate (e.g. "but what about X?"), but it's not ok to attach subtext that argues that scientists don't know what they're talking about and/or are engaged in fraud. You can draw those conclusions once you've read the existing research and have evidence that fraud is taking place. Until then, lose the accusatory rhetoric.
-
Vonnegut at 04:54 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Well Dikran youre entitled to your opinion. Yes a permanent drop of 15 degrees would affect many creatures, I just dont think a small drop in ph will, thats all.
I thank you for your input so far.
-
Vonnegut at 04:49 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Ive been searching for info on the ph range of the Menidia beryllina to no avail (anyone?)
also wasnt the experiment rather futile as the fish may not have spawned in such low ph water?
-
Vonnegut at 04:37 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
@61 in another 400 years? its dropped 0.1 in 200
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:25 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Second thoughts, I have gone back to thinking you are just trolling. You have no basis for saying that "0.1 ph rise is nowhere near the same as a 15 degree rise in mean tem". pHs and temperatures are not directly comparable without reference to the effects they have on the environment. UK flora and fauna has no problem with a 15 degree C daily variability, fish have no problem with a daily or seasonal 0.1 change in pH. That doesn't mean that fish can cope with a permanent change of 0.1 in pH and more than UK flora and fauna can deal with a permanent change of 15 degrees C in mean temperature.
The real slice of baloney though is the comment about the inuit. Sure inuit can adapt, but you may have noticed that the flora and fauna they encounter is rather different to the flora and fauna you are likely to encounter in the U.K. Do you think that just possibly the difference in mean temperature might be the reason?
Sorry, life is too short for this sort of persiflage when genuine discussion of the science is so much more interesting.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:24 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Super article, Mark. Thanks!
...there can’t be radiation coming down from the atmosphere and heating us up.
Leaving aside Mark's lovely explanation, what I've never seen fully developed by skeptics (dismissives; whatever) making claims about the destination and ultimate fate of radiation is how photons know where they're supposed to be going. If somehow radiation avoids going from a cooler body to a wamer body, that behavior would require superluminal information transfer, a mechanism for photons to sort and choose their destinations, etc. A whole pile of "somehow" is left unaddressed.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:18 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut wrote "youre suggesting that its harder to adapt over time than it is day by day?"
No, I am saying that oscillatory vairiablity is easier to adapt to than long term effectively permanent change. I would have thought that was obvious from my contrasting "diurnal and seasonal temperature changes" with "permanent change".
I notice that on this thread again you are ignoring the example I gave. Do you think that UK native flora and fauna could adapt to a permanent drop of 15 degrees C in temperature, yes or no?
-
Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
I tried to calculate the energy imbalance based on this updated graph from Levitus et al. 2012. Each data point is a 5-year average, so the last point (2011) covers the period 2009-2013. This is my result:
Period Heat accumulation Energy imbalance 1961-1971 -0.9 x 1022 J -0.06 W/m2 1971-1981 +4.3 x 1022 J +0.27 W/m2 1981-1991 +4.4 x 1022 J +0.27 W/m2 1991-2001 +5.2 x 1022 J +0.32 W/m2 2001-2011 +8.4 x 1022 J +0.52 W/m2 1961-2011 +21.4 x 1022 J +0.27 W/m2 There is of course a significant uncertainty in these numbers, but they indicate that the average energy imbalance for the last decade was about twice that of the last 50 years.
According to figure 10 in James Hansen's Earth's energy imbalance and implications the contribution from oceans deeper than 2000 m and around Antarctica is slightly less than 0.1 Watt/m2 and from non-ocean about 0.06-0.07 W/m2. That brings the total energy imbalance for the last decade up to about 0.65-0.7 W/m2.
What I find most striking is the fact that even if the atmospheric warming in the last decade had continued at the same rate as before 2000 (0.2oC/decade), this would only add about 1 percent (!!) to the present energy imbalance.
Therefore a "hiatus" in the surface warming does not disprove AGW as long as the oceans continue to warm at their present rate!
-
grindupBaker at 04:15 AM on 5 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
MA Rodger #16 Yes, it's the fallacious argument that a mass cannot warm a warmer mass, used in both atmosphere (radiation) and ocean comments (the fallacy that heat cannot increase at depth with also increasing shallower, and this "heat gone forever" one). It ignores the underpinning of the entire topic, that the system has heat transfer dynamic near-balance on kiloyear time scales, with a warming system and a cooling system near-balanced to keep it their. If part of the cooling system is warmed (deep cold waters that well up various places) then the whole system eventually warms to a new higher near-balanced temperature. I think the skeptic position on that is actually philosophical, even if not stated, because it's really saying it'll not be our grandchildren when it's (deep heat) moved from nuisance to catastrophe so we shouldn't consider it (OT for this post so I'm not commenting).
-
Vonnegut at 04:09 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@43 youre suggesting that its harder to adapt over time than it is day by day?
0.1 ph rise is nowhere near the same as a 15 degree rise in mean temp, oddly enough using that analogy has made me think of Inuit, wonder what their average mean is?
-
Vonnegut at 03:58 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
I guess asking how the coelacanth made it to modern day is futile :)
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:54 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut wrote "the same way they adapt to changes in Ph and temp every day? bit by bit."
This is the same discussion we had on the other thread, just because X is tolerant to short term variations in Y does not imply that X is tolerant of long term changes in Y of similar magnitude. As I pointed out on the other thread, UK native fauna and flora can quite happily adapt to a diurnal and seasonal temperature changes of 15 degrees C, not much of it could adapt to a permanent change of 15 degrees C.
-
CBDunkerson at 03:50 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Vonnegut, are you really arguing that the fact some sea creatures can survive daily swings from 8.6 to 7.6 pH means that those same creatures will be able to survive daily swings from 6.6 to 7.6 pH after ocean acidification?
-
Vonnegut at 03:47 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@41 the same way they adapt to changes in Ph and temp every day? bit by bit.
Take a fish from 58 degrees and drop in 80f water and it will die within hours if you do small increases over a few weeks they can survive.
Fair point ,noted.
-
CBDunkerson at 03:26 AM on 5 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
So, it seems like there are two separate ways of analyzing the consensus being considered here;- Studies: 'Nearly all climate scientists surveyed agree that AGW is happening.'
- Vonnegut: 'You did not ask every climate scientist so, statistical sampling be damned, there could be vast hordes of unasked climate scientists who do not agree.'
- Logic: Why haven't these vast hordes of disagreeing climate scientists come forward to contest the studies?
- Studies: 'Nearly all climate science research papers agree that AGW is happening.'
- Vonnegut: 'Not every research paper explicitly says "AGW is happening" so there could be vast hordes of papers by authors who disagree that were mis-categorized.'
- Logic: Why haven't the authors of these vast hordes of mis-categorized papers come forward to contest the studies?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:04 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut, how could fish adapt to the change in as little as only 96 years?
The inland silverside is a fish that lives in estuaries and freshwater, this to me at least makes it surprising that OA proved to be such a problem for them. The fact that the work was published in a journal suggests that the outcome was non-obvious and the experiments were not pointless.
I should point out again that your posting style is not going to work well here, dismissing scientific research as pointless without paing attention to details (such as the natural habitat of the inland silverside) does not give confidence.
-
DSL at 03:00 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, even if something looks obvious, it still needs to be confirmed via the scientific method. There is a variety of information discoverable well beyond the basic confirmation or rejection of the primary hypothesis.
To me, it's obvious that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that humans are overhwlemingly responsible for the trend of the last 50 years. So why are we paying these scientists to work out the details. How pointless!
-
Vonnegut at 02:52 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
I think the experiments above were pointless, who didnt know if you keep seafish in almost neutral water they would die and produce deoformed fry especially when they havent had 96 years to adapt to the change?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:37 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
The quoted paragraph seems pretty clear that the amounts involved are rather small. There is about 400ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere at the moment, so taking it all out in 3,500 year is about 0.1ppmv per year on average. The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is currently rising is about 1.5-2 ppmv IIRC, and that is about half of what anthropogenic emissions are actually contributing to the atmosphere. So without considering the effects of calcification a rough estimate might be that it accounts for 5% of anthropogenic emissions.
If we were to stop all emissions today, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall rapidly for 60 years or so until the atmosphere had equilibriated with the oceans, then more slowly as the upper layers of the ocean equilibriate with the deep ocean and but the full return to "pre-industrial" equilibrium will take tens to thousands of year to achive, largely by chemical weathering. See the work of David Archer (I've probably explained that badly and maybe have some details inaccurate, but the paper is a good one).
-
Vonnegut at 02:21 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Its in part 6 of the part 1 summary, It isnt clear how much co2 is being consumed by natural rocks.
This leads to mildly acidic rainwater (pH 5.7). Weathering consumes CO2 and means that river water contains a lot of bicarbonate. The amount of bicarbonate added to the ocean by rivers is equal to the amount of CO2 consumed and is sufficient to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere in 3500 years. Plainly this hasn't happened in the past. Something is returning CO2 to the atmosphere. That something is Eq. 1 for calcification
Moderator Response:[PW] Vonnegut, this will be your first and *last* warning, from me: your repeated violations of the Comment Policy of this blog will no longer be tolerated. do it again, and your subsequent posts will be deleted in their entirety, and no explanation will be given. You've been repeatedly warned, yet persist in sloganeering. Cease.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:07 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut, it might be best to deal with one question at a time. What "missing CO2" are you referring to and what sort of reaction with limestone do you have in mind? I suspect this might not be the most appropriate thread for this particular question.
Prev 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 Next
