Southern Ocean Heating - re: "Irreversible" on SA headline

[Steam Flyer]

That is oddly and disturbingly specific, and I'm concerned that you may want to see a proctologist. And how did a monkey learn to play the banjo? What's the motivation?

The source of the coloration and cultural stimuli of the monkey are not questions that concern science.

It's just an example of a severe outlier among statistical anomalies.

 

[luminarycrush]

 

[floater]

does IQ=100 line up just around the 'e' of Valley above?

- just asking questions.

 

[EYESAILOR]

The reason I asked was I couldn't see my reply to you (which was friendly by the way), so I guess it did not get sent. Oh well.

Yeah I appreciate it.

Im sorry if my reply came across as weaponized, I thnk it escaped from a lab in Stonnington .

 

[Kiwi Clipper]

I like the science of magic. We put heat from carbon into the northern atmosphere and the earth hides it deep in the southern ocean where we can't see it or measure it. That's how you know it's there! It may come out just when we need it to save us from the next ice age!

 

[pqbon]

I like the science of magic. We put heat from carbon into the northern atmosphere and the earth hides it deep in the southern ocean where we can't see it or measure it. That's how you know it's there! It may come out just when we need it to save us from the next ice age!

I have no idea what you are talking about. We have measured an increase in the atmosphere as a whole -- just not as much as we expect --- we can measure the extra heat in the southern/pacific ocean... There is no magic involved.

We can also now see all the extreme events that are happening as predicted by the models. Have we ever had extreme weather in the past - yes -- with the frequency we see now with the extremes we see now - no.

 

[Voiled]

I see why this site is called Sailing Anarchy now.

Stop. Spreading. Your. Shit.

 

[Historic 18-footers]

When talking to people who are on the denial side of the argument about climate change I use this point. For years production of CO2 and absorption by trees were broadly in balance. Climate was more stable although things like a comet hitting earth did disrupt things for a few hundred years. Since the industrial revolution, we produce heaps more carbon dioxide. Just look at the smog in many cities - China and India in particular. We have cut down many of the world's rainforests. Any time lapse Google earth pictures will show you how much has been removed. So more CO2 and fewer trees to absorb it. What do you think will happen?

What we are doing with energy and cars to reduce pollution is not having the impact we need. And these are the low-hanging fruit. How do you reduce emissions from Cement and Aluminium production? How do you tell people with no gas or electricity that they can not cut down trees to cook their food?

We should start pouring money into research on DAC - Direct Air Capture - so it is ready to implement in 50 years. Our survival will probably come down to removing CO2 from the air in volumes we have never contemplated. We are only pushing out the point where we have to ramp up DAC with what we are doing now.

 

[Steam Flyer]

When talking to people who are on the denial side of the argument about climate change I use this point. For years production of CO2 and absorption by trees were broadly in balance. Climate was more stable although things like a comet hitting earth did disrupt things for a few hundred years. Since the industrial revolution, we produce heaps more carbon dioxide. Just look at the smog in many cities - China and India in particular. We have cut down many of the world's rainforests. Any time lapse Google earth pictures will show you how much has been removed. So more CO2 and fewer trees to absorb it. What do you think will happen?

What we are doing with energy and cars to reduce pollution is not having the impact we need. And these are the low-hanging fruit. How do you reduce emissions from Cement and Aluminium production? How do you tell people with no gas or electricity that they can not cut down trees to cook their food?

We should start pouring money into research on DAC - Direct Air Capture - so it is ready to implement in 50 years. Our survival will probably come down to removing CO2 from the air in volumes we have never contemplated. We are only pushing out the point where we have to ramp up DAC with what we are doing now.

Trying to convince deniers that yes, it's real, is almost impossible but I have a strategy that at least gets them thinking. That is to ignore, for the moment, the issue of carbon dioxide and atmospheric models. I have never met a single one that had any idea just how much fossils fuels we are burning. Generally they have poor numbers skills too, but when they google for themselves that humans are burning >94 million barrels of oil per day, and > 23 million tons of coal per day, then they start to think wow maybe our habits do have an impact.

The problem is that they "feel" that the world is basically empty except for their little corner of Podunk. Africa and all the other continents are just empty colored blobs on a map. Nature is infinite.

I like applying the concept that there has to be a balance between carbon producers and carbon absorbers (trees).

 

[floater]

DAC - Direct Air Capture

icymi. https://terraformindustries.com/

 

[huey 2]

 

[huey 2]

Snopes.com


Fact Checks
Science

Did a 1912 Newspaper Article Predict Global Warming?​

A newspaper clipping from 1912 that anticipates the global warming potential of burning coal is authentic and consistent with the history of climate science.​

• Alex Kasprak
• Published 18 October 2016

Claim
A 14 August 1912 article from a New Zealand newspaper contained a brief story about how burning coal might produce future warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Rating​

True
About this rating

Origin​

On 11 October 2016, the Facebook page “Sustainable Business Network NZ” posted a photograph of a clipping from the 14 August 1912 edition of the Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette that included a brief item headlined “Coal Consumption Affecting Climate”:

The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.

This article’s authenticity is supported by the fact it can be found in the digital archives of the National Library of New Zealand.
Further attesting to its authenticity (and perhaps its role as a bit of stock news used to fill space) is that an identical story had appeared in an Australian newspaper a month prior, in the 17 July 1912, issue of The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, as found in the digital archives of the National Library of Australia.
An even deeper dive reveals that the text of this news item has its origins in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, where it appeared as a caption in an article titled “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate — What Scientists Predict for the Future”:



Some online commenters expressed skepticism over the notion that such a clear understanding of the mechanisms relating to greenhouse gases existed in 1912, or that anyone back then would have suggested humans could play a role in altering their concentration. In fact, the timing of these news clips is consistent with the historical record.
The first person to use the term “greenhouse gases” was a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In a paper published that year, he made an early calculation of how much warmer the Earth was thanks to the energy-trapping nature of some of the gases in the atmosphere. Even at this early stage, he understood that humans had the potential to play a significant role in changing the concentration of at least one of those gases, carbon dioxide (carbonic acid back then):

The world’s present production of coal reaches in round numbers 500 millions of tons per annum, or 1 ton per km of earth’s surface. Transformed into carbonic acid, this quantity would correspond to about a thousandth part of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere.

Though he didn’t explicitly say in that paper that human activity could warm the planet, Arrhenius would go on to make that argument in later works. A 2008 tribute to Arrhenius published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences stated that his ideas about coal and climate were popular and well known in his day but fell out of favor for a while after his death in 1927:

While Arrhenius’ prediction [of warming] received great public interest, this typically waned in time but was revived as an important global mechanism by the great atmospheric physicist Carl Gustaf Rossby who initiated atmospheric CO2 measurements in Sweden in the 1950s.

In this sense, the content and date of the newspaper clips in question are consistent with both what was known to scientists about greenhouse gases then and what the general public was interested in at the time.

• Alex Kasprak
• Published 18 October 2016

Climate Change
global warming
greenhouse gases

 

[Voiled]

The movements of the air and the waters, the extent of the seas, the elevation and the form of the surface, the effects of human industry and all the accidental changes to the terrestrial surface modify the temperatures in each climate.

Joseph Fourier, 1827

 

[AClass USA 230]

I have no idea what you are talking about. We have measured an increase in the atmosphere as a whole -- just not as much as we expect --- we can measure the extra heat in the southern/pacific ocean... There is no magic involved.

We can also now see all the extreme events that are happening as predicted by the models. Have we ever had extreme weather in the past - yes -- with the frequency we see now with the extremes we see now - no.

It’s interesting that a few days ago, Don Lemon on CNN challenged the director of the National Hurricane Center with the same assertion that hurricanes are now more frequent and intensify more rapidly. The director responded that the data they have and analyze does not show that to be accurate. Mr. Lemon was not happy with that response and in short order shut down the interview.

You can probably find this on YouTube. Check it out for yourself.

 

[Marty Gingras]

It’s interesting that a few days ago, Don Lemon on CNN challenged the director of the National Hurricane Center with the same assertion that hurricanes are now more frequent and intensify more rapidly. The director responded that the data they have and analyze does not show that to be accurate. Mr. Lemon was not happy with that response and in short order shut down the interview.

You can probably find this on YouTube. Check it out for yourself.

IMHO you mischaracterized the exchange between the two. Don asked about climate change w/regard to the phenomenon of rapid intensification. The expert said he wouldn't link climate change to any one storm, climate change may be affecting hurricanes, and wants to talk only about the present storm. Seems to me the expert dodged the question, but he didn't elaborate about data sufficiency or analysis. Don didn't shut down the interview abruptly. That said, all I could find were clips in videos done by RWNJs such that you may have seen a longer video.

 

[huey 2]

From the Home Page

bad acid

The Environment As new information about the rapidly warming Arctic continue to emerge, a new study published last week in Science found that the Western Arctic Ocean is acidifying four

sailinganarchy.com

 

[DryArmour]

Trying to convince deniers that yes, it's real, is almost impossible but I have a strategy that at least gets them thinking. That is to ignore, for the moment, the issue of carbon dioxide and atmospheric models. I have never met a single one that had any idea just how much fossils fuels we are burning. Generally they have poor numbers skills too, but when they google for themselves that humans are burning >94 million barrels of oil per day, and > 23 million tons of coal per day, then they start to think wow maybe our habits do have an impact.

The problem is that they "feel" that the world is basically empty except for their little corner of Podunk. Africa and all the other continents are just empty colored blobs on a map. Nature is infinite.

I like applying the concept that there has to be a balance between carbon producers and carbon absorbers (trees).

Please understand that approximately 70% of the earth's oxygen content comes from phytoplankton in the ocean. While trees and other plants grown in the dirt are important, it is the plankton that is key to the balance. One more reason that we need to take care of our oceans.

Maintaining crop production is also important to note that US corn production is producing 40% more oxygen than the entire Amazon rainforest during growth season. I personally found this statistic hard to believe but upon further research found that it is in fact accurate.
Each and every one of us can help minimize the amount of carbon we contribute to the atmosphere and that will help, but until China and other industrial countries get on board and stop opening new coal-fired plants, it is going to be an uphill battle. India gets roughly 70% of its power from coal. Think they use expensive exhaust filtration systems to minimize their pollution output? Think again. Europe is likely to have to resort to wood and coal burning this winter for simple survival as the natural gas supply is looking dubious.

There is much work to be done to help take care of our planet but I think the models that indicate places like southern California will have 8 inches of sea rise by 2050 (the State of California has declared this as "FACT") are well overbaked. According to this near real-time data from NOAA, the sea level rise is more on the order of 1.5mm per year or an inch and a half by 2050. That isn't nothing, but hardly what the doomsdayers are reporting to be indisputable "FACTS".

Have a good week everyone. Do your part.

 

[Meat Wad]

Please understand that approximately 70% of the earth's oxygen content comes from phytoplankton in the ocean. While trees and other plants grown in the dirt are important, it is the plankton that is key to the balance. One more reason that we need to take care of our oceans.

Maintaining crop production is also important to note that US corn production is producing 40% more oxygen than the entire Amazon rainforest during growth season. I personally found this statistic hard to believe but upon further research found that it is in fact accurate.
Each and every one of us can help minimize the amount of carbon we contribute to the atmosphere and that will help, but until China and other industrial countries get on board and stop opening new coal-fired plants, it is going to be an uphill battle. India gets roughly 70% of its power from coal. Think they use expensive exhaust filtration systems to minimize their pollution output? Think again. Europe is likely to have to resort to wood and coal burning this winter for simple survival as the natural gas supply is looking dubious.

There is much work to be done to help take care of our planet but I think the models that indicate places like southern California will have 8 inches of sea rise by 2050 (the State of California has declared this as "FACT") are well overbaked. According to this near real-time data from NOAA, the sea level rise is more on the order of 1.5mm per year or an inch and a half by 2050. That isn't nothing, but hardly what the doomsdayers are reporting to be indisputable "FACTS".

Have a good week everyone. Do your part.

Thanks Mark, the Corn Crop factoid is pretty amazing. If we could stop the runoff pollution from farming creating the dead zone in the Gulf that would be really good.

Here is an interesting article I bumped into while trying to look at the really big picture.

Is Our Solar System Heating Up?

The consequences of human activity on our environment has been proven and sadly can be observed on a daily basis, however, in a recent paper published last September, scientists exposed new results showing a much lower impact of CO2 on climate change

www.resonancescience.org

 

[DryArmour]

Thanks Mark, the Corn Crop factoid is pretty amazing. If we could stop the runoff pollution from farming creating the dead zone in the Gulf that would be really good.

Here is an interesting article I bumped into while trying to look at the really big picture.

Is Our Solar System Heating Up?

The consequences of human activity on our environment has been proven and sadly can be observed on a daily basis, however, in a recent paper published last September, scientists exposed new results showing a much lower impact of CO2 on climate change

www.resonancescience.org

That darn solar cycle. If we could control that...Maybe have China and India build a Dyson sphere to counteract their effects on CO2?

 

[david r]

CO2 is a life giving gas.
carbon monoxide from cars is pollution.
The settlers turn the mid usa into arid land by cutting down trees. That is a problem.
The scientist that started the weather channel says man made global warming is false. He may be wrong though because chem trails across the world since the mid 90's may actually be the problem...
ps. i would like to see some one re do the Cavendish experiment with the big lead balls in the shed and prove gravity.