Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for mackieOAposts

Comments matching the search mackieOAposts:

Ocean acidification isn't serious

scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 21 January, 2020

Markoh, first thing about biological systems and climate is that overall, lifeforms can adapt/evolve to a wide range of conditions. There is no "perfect" climate. What is problematic is rapid change - change that occurs faster than adaption can manage.

This applies especially to ocean acidification. Over long timescales (>10,000 years), ocean chemistry is roughly buffered by weathering. Some of the ocean chemistry detail in the "OA is not OK" series. For more about the ocean pH through time, see perhaps this paper.

What the geological record does tell us though is that past rapid ocean acidification events have indeed been a problem. See this recent review especially, chpt 4, "What the past can tell us".

Ocean acidification isn't serious

Tom Dayton at 03:25 AM on 14 January, 2018

aleks, see the series of posts OA Not OK for a more correct chemical explanation that contradicts your assertion that "Chemical calculations show that the effect of CO2 on seawater acidity accepted by the majority of climatologists is highly exaggerated."

CO2 lags temperature

scaddenp at 06:00 AM on 13 March, 2014

Cedders - the feedbacks that work with the Milankovich cycle are slow. With around 1000 year cycle time, the ocean's wont be outgassing anytime soon. At the moment, oceans are mopping up much of our emissions (See the OA is not okay series for detail). CMIP3 models did not include carbon cycle feedbacks. I believe that some of the CMIP5 model are "earth system" models with these feedbacks included, but they have little impact on what happens in the next 100 years.

As to measurable - Ocean pH and isotopic composition of CO2 in atmosphere would both constrain estimates of outgassing.

Global Warming’s Missing Heat: Look Back In Anger (and considerable disbelief)…

Composer99 at 03:26 AM on 13 September, 2013

hank_:

In the first place, the hard data is already widely available. No special effort need be made by anyone who wants to find it. NOAA/NCDC, here at Skeptical Science, Real Climate, IPCC reports, and so on and so forth. Frankly, going around making statements implying that scientists have yet to "bring forth the hard data" sounds far more like spin in that light. In fact, it strikes me as practically an accusation of malfeasance.

In the second place, "damage control from the AGW faithful"?? Please. Pointing out (correctly) that the oceans are taking up 90+% of additional heat content from global warming isn't "damage control". It's called being accurate. If you want damage control, there are many accounts by climate pseudoskeptics of how Arctic sea ice has been "in recovery" any time over the last decade (it hasn't), or how a not-quite-statistically-significant-yet-still-positive surface temperature trend since 1998 counts as "no warming" or even "cooling".

-----

josiecki:

The NOAA/NCDC link posted by BBD works just fine for me (perhaps a mod fixed it if it was actually broken?). In addition, there just so happens to be a link to the Levitus et al paper in the Skeptical Science post discussing it. (Fancy that.) On to specifics regarding your inquiries:

Surface Temps vs. Heat Content

With regards to the prior focus on surface temperature anomalies, it must be said that these are much easier to measure than ocean heat content, we have longer-term reliable networks of surface temperature measurements, and as far as I am aware finding/developing adequate proxies for historical/paleo measurement is also much easier for surface temperatures than for ocean heat content.

That being said, we are getting better at measuring present and past ocean heat content, and it is IMO irresponsible to leave it out of the discussion, since as discussed it does represent heat storage of nearly 2 orders of magnitude more energy from global warming than do surface temperatures.

The Hockey Stick

For it's part, the "hockey stick" is in reality just a small, minor piece of the global warming body of knowledge. Insofar as it is a cause célèbre, at least in the last ten years, it is because of extraordinary efforts by denialists to attack and discredit it (which they have manifestly failed to do). It is also instructive since it shows an important part of the picture: the rapidity of contemporary warming.

Why the Atmosphere & CO₂?

You ask "why are we looking at the atmosphere?" Then you basically answer the question yourself with "Isn't the atmosphere where we experience climate [weather]? [correction mine]"

The changes in weather due to warming, and its attendant effects on agriculture and other socioeconomic activity, is a very good reason to look at the atmosphere.

As for CO₂, well, the physics shows that the reason all this warming is occurring, in the oceans and atmosphere and cryosphere, is because of the extra CO₂ in the atmosphere. (This is kind of a "Well, DUH!" thing.)

What's It All About, Anyway?

In your final post (as of this writing), you make what is IMO a very revealing comment:

If we didn't have warming, we would be like Mars or a floating chunk of ice. It is a question of whether we are in balance, out of balance or just fluctuating.

There are three major reasons why global warming is "kind of a big deal":

Sea level rise. Sea level rise has consistently been at the high end of projections. Current expectations for sea level rise range from 50 cm to 2 m above preindustrial levels by the end of this century. The lower end projection entails an enormous cost to protect what coastal infrastructure we can and abandoning the rest. The higher end projection means the effective end of, say, entities such as the city of Miami, or the country of Bangladesh. Both represent severe economic and human crises.
Ocean acidification. The "evil twin" of global warming, this is not caused by warming per se, but rather has the same source as warming: CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Currently, ocean acidification is proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in recent geological history, faster even than occasions known to be associated with, say, massive dieback of coral reefs.
Other impacts, especially on agriculture, glacier melt, and (sub)-tropical regions. I won't go into too much detail here.

Suffice to say, the net consequence of these impacts severely impairs our ability as a species to continue to exist in the extraordinary state of physical affluence and numbers we currently possess. If we want to maintain something like what we have now, global warming must be dealt with.

As a final word, as I said to hank_, the data you are wondering about is out there, in great abundance. Start with the IPCC reports and work your way through the references. Browse posts here, or at Real Climate, and work through the references. The people who know their stuff and are regulars here are quite happy to help (although their reaction is strongly contingent on the perceived "adversarial" nature of the questions - many are the pseudoskeptics who have come and gone while "just asking questions").

Frequently Asked Questions About Ocean Acidification

mdenison at 22:43 PM on 4 January, 2013

This article does not show up in search results on clicking "OA not OK". I assume the word 'mackieOAposts' needs to added to the text to make the search work.

The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2

KR at 13:45 PM on 1 March, 2012

Michael Hauber - Your post is contradictory, I would assume not intentionally. Your hypothetic source/sink will emit/absorb CO2 above a specific level? This is not comprehensible.

The oceans have (as per the ice core record) absorbed or release ~90ppm of CO2 over a 5-6C temperature swing, with a time delay of 500-800 years. Not due to atmospheric CO2 concentration changes, mind you, but due to solubility changes with temperature. The oceans therefore do not fit your hypothetical, as atmospheric concentrations have changed in sync with our emissions for the last 150 years or so, with natural sinks (primarily the oceans) absorbing only half of our emissions.

In regards to the oceans, I would suggest reading the OA Is Not OK series, Why ocean heat can’t drive climate change, and What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 to review the mass balance issues.

We certainly understand enough of what CO2 is doing in the oceans to determine that the oceans are not the source of CO2 increases over the last 150 years.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results