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

Voiled

Anarchist
509
377
The trouble with the climate argument is the monumental logical jumps made based on a single view of earth when multiple factors which could be far more significant and important are not being considered.
We know earth has gone through all kinds of natural cycles in the past. Are we assuming that the past fifty years of records forms a baseline for earth and we must maintain the earth at its exact temperature forever? I heard there were ice ages and warm ages. The finger lakes of New York were cut by ice glaciers. Do the scientists know what causes these cycles? The "science" of global warming says we could heat up the planet by a degree or so in x years. How many tens of degrees warmer or colder does the earth get during an ice age or warm period? What tiny percent of those changes does carbon heating constitute? And did earth survive? And how do we know that the temperature changes we have observed over 50-100 years have not arisen as part of one of these larger cycles? Heat increases/decreases from the sun? Volcanic activity?
Assuming America could go to zero carbon in X period of time. If China and India do not, what will be the environmental impact?
For the most part our armies and navies are powered by carbon. Are we giving up our deterrent role in the world? Is the plan to give up our hope for a world of demcracy and let Putin and Chee dominate the world? Now what has zero US carbon achieved? In fact, you can already give it credit for the start of the Ukraine War and the wiping out of Mariupol. Half a million people, a whole culture, dead.
The largest land masses in the world are far north. Would a five degree temperature increase be welcome in Siberia and the North West Territories and Greenland? Will the growing world population benefit from warming these lands? How about in Antarctica. Maybe the penguins would prosper more with a little more heat? We know that the deep ocean suffers from a lack of energy (heat). Would they benefit?
A much more cogent environmental question today is the four or more garbage vortices developing in the oceans (two in the pacific, one in the Atlantic, one in the Indian ocean). and made up of human made plastics in such quantities that they are blocking out the access of plankton to the sun and interfering with the life processes in the oceans.
By the man who brought us: "I am wondering, has anyone ever put a carbon rig on a 40.7 to reduce weight aloft and smooth out its motion through the water?" You should try and grasp basic physics instead of feeding us fake climate change propaganda.
 

Kiwi Clipper

Member
86
57
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!
Yesterday upon a stair, I saw a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today. My I wish he'd go away!
 

jhc

Super Anarchist
2,417
261
The trouble with the climate argument is the monumental logical jumps made based on a single view of earth when multiple factors which could be far more significant and important are not being considered.
We know earth has gone through all kinds of natural cycles in the past. Are we assuming that the past fifty years of records forms a baseline for earth and we must maintain the earth at its exact temperature forever? I heard there were ice ages and warm ages. The finger lakes of New York were cut by ice glaciers. Do the scientists know what causes these cycles? The "science" of global warming says we could heat up the planet by a degree or so in x years. How many tens of degrees warmer or colder does the earth get during an ice age or warm period? What tiny percent of those changes does carbon heating constitute? And did earth survive? And how do we know that the temperature changes we have observed over 50-100 years have not arisen as part of one of these larger cycles? Heat increases/decreases from the sun? Volcanic activity?
Assuming America could go to zero carbon in X period of time. If China and India do not, what will be the environmental impact?
…abridged rant

It’s evident that over centuries man has improved the conditions on earth relative to human existence. The argument for continuing to do so is the same argument for combating climate change, mitigating conflict, promoting health, and countless other issues we face as a species.
The fossil record shows what to expect if conditions on earth deteriorate relative to human survival.
Religion, and politics play the short game.
Humanity should learn to play the long game. If we don’t learn we lose.
 

Kiwi Clipper

Member
86
57
"You should try and grasp basic physics instead of feeding us fake climate change propaganda" I love it. The exact advice I would give to you!!

If we 'know' this, could you point me to a period where the rate of change in temperature has been within an order of magnitude of what it is now?

Cause I dont know as much as you must.
So here's a short commentary from an earth science site. They say that in the period after the dinosaurs earth's average temperature rose to 73 degrees which they say is hotter than today (60 degrees). The sites on ice ages indicate earth temperatures as much as 11 degrees (f) cooler than today. When temperatures vary as much as they do, day to day and hour by hour all over Earth, trying to have a single figure of "average temperature seems near impossible. In fact some experts say that temperatures have actually been falling the past thirty years, so they had to change the mantra from "global warming" to "climate change". As you try to pin down the "rates of change" then what is the appropriate period for measuring. Even after you get that, extrapolating future temperature rises based on past increases srequires all sorts of assumptions about other factors that could play a role such as volcanic activity. So this is what I found on historic global warming:
"Stretching from about 66-34 million years ago, the Paleocene and Eocene were the first geologic epochs following the end of the Mesozoic Era. (The Mesozoic—the age of dinosaurs—was itself an era punctuated by “hothouse” conditions.) Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. The transition between the two epochs around 56 million years ago was marked by a rapid spike in global temperature."
 

Se7en

Super Anarchist
1,500
607
Melbourne
As you try to pin down the "rates of change" then what is the appropriate period for measuring.
A year is probably a bit fine, a decade would be great, a hundred years probably the best we can do, a Millenium a bit long but probably still OK.

So - using any of those, has the rate of change ever been as high as it is currently?
 

Kiwi Clipper

Member
86
57
Having trouble trying to understand exactly what you are measuring. Are you measuring temperatures on the whole earth? Just the atmosphere, just the atmosphere and water, are you including temperatures of the ice bergs and the molten lava? How deep? Exactly what are you measuring, so I can answer accurately. Because I think maybe we don't know the temperature of Earth, but only a very small part of it.
You focus on whether the rate of change has "ever" been as high? As high as what? I am not thinking you mean the last hundred years or fifty years before the period in the 1900's when some scientists think Earth was actually cooling down, but your "rate of change is calculated from the lowest point after that cooling to the highest point a few years later, after a period of warming. Maybe that's not such a good period for comparison. Since our data only exists for 100 years, how can anyone answer your question "ever been as high"? Earth is billions of years old.
There's an assumption in all of this that there has been a kind of "levelling" or "normalization" in the past hundred or thousand years. The assumption is on the one hand, almost childlike in its naivete ...as though the world has only now during our time, become stable as it has been since the time we were born... and on the other hand the assumption is incredibly self centered and arrogant. Actually the evidence is that Earth has been changing very dramatically though to specifically answer your question, we don't have any scientific evidence on short term variability except through limited measurements the past 100 years or so, and our own experience. And even though the chart may have recently pointed upward, there is no evidence to suggest that a short present rate of rise will continue.
On the other hand, we do know there has been great variability over time. There was complex life on Earth 70 million years ago and longer. In Kaneohe Bay they say some of the simpler life forms have existed for 350 million years! We know that in human times the Mediterranean Sea was many feet lower where Greek and other ruins now exist underwater. And in Hawaii where I live there are land areas that are 20+ feet above sea level where there are layers of coral rock separated by sediment and earth... so we know the ocean has been both higher and lower, than it presently is. We know too that volcanic activity has an enormous impact on air quality. For long periods when Kilauea has been erupting there has been health harming VOG a hundred miles away in Kona, and 250 miles away in Honolulu.
The ocean at the deepest is six miles at Mariana trench and the atmosphere is pretty thin at 12 miles (70,000 feet above sea level). But the earth diameter is about 8000 miles so we and all the rest of the life on earth and as far as we know, in the Universe, live in this incredibly narrow strip on the surface of Earth no more than 20 miles wide, and subject to enormous forces of energy from within the depths of the Earth and from the sun.
So a few scientists speculate that by burning some hydrocarbons, we can alter the course of the enormous forces that surround us and define our existence. IMHO their conclusions are incredibly presumptuous, and their prescriptions for the disease are far more damaging to humanity than ever would be the disease they claim to identify. How many poor European and Canadian children by way of example, will die this winter of cold or diseases caught while they were too poor to afford heat and just too cold.
 

Se7en

Super Anarchist
1,500
607
Melbourne
Having trouble trying to understand exactly what you are measuring.
Average atmospheric temperature at sea level if you want to be a pedant. Or I guess you could specify at some location where we can take ice samples.
Since our data only exists for 100 years, how can anyone answer your question "ever been as high"?
On the other hand, we do know there has been great variability over time.
You need to pick a position here. Do we only have data for 100 years? Or do we know that there has been variability over time?

Clearly you believe some data that lets you say they there has been great variability over time. That data must specify temperature in some way. In what ever way it specifies temperature, does that data ever show that there has been as high a rate of change as there had been over the last 50 to 100 years?

My understanding is that ice sample data shows that the warming over the last 100 years has happened faster than ever before. There has been approximately 1.2 degrees of warming over the last 100 years, whereas previously that would have been spread out over 1000s (or more) of years. It looks like something is happening now that has never happened before.

this site explains the varied datasets quite well, but only has data up until early 2000
NOAA has up to date data, but is a bit harder to understand.
 

ProaSailor

dreaming my life away...
6,124
811
Oregon
The last eight years were the hottest ever recorded on Earth: World Meteorological Organization report
November 06, 2022

A startling new report released by the World Meteorological Organization at the start of Sunday's United Nations Climate Change Conference revealed that the last eight years were the hottest ever recorded on planet Earth. According to the WMO's provisional State of the Global Climate, the unprecedented global temperatures were "fuelled by ever-rising greenhouse gas concentrations and accumulated heat. Extreme heatwaves, drought, and devastating flooding have affected millions and cost billions this year."

The WMO's sobering findings underscore the tangible consequences of the relentless dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

"The tell-tale signs and impacts of climate change are becoming more dramatic. The rate of sea level rise has doubled since 1993. It has risen by nearly 10 mm since January 2020 to a new record high this year. The past two and a half years alone account for 10 percent of the overall rise in sea level since satellite measurements started nearly 30 years ago. 2022 took an exceptionally heavy toll on glaciers in the European Alps, with initial indications of record-shattering melt. The Greenland ice sheet lost mass for the 26th consecutive year and it rained (rather than snowed) there for the first time in September," the WMO explained.
 
Last edited:

ProaSailor

dreaming my life away...
6,124
811
Oregon
The Psychology Tricks That Can Dispel Climate Change Denial
Nov. 07, 2022

If we delve into the psychology underlying climate change denial, part of the answer becomes apparent: the form of cognitive distortion we call black-and-white thinking. Concepts and issues that are complex and contain a spectrum of possibilities are simplified and polarized into stark binaries—pairs of opposites. Shades of gray are missed; everything appears to be either black or white, true or false, right or wrong.
[...]
Black-and-white thinking is heavily characterized by asymmetrical ways of making sense of the world. For example, perfectionists categorize their work as either perfect or unsatisfactory; good and very good outcomes are lumped together with poor ones in the unsatisfactory category.

It’s like a pass/fail grading system in which 100 percent earns a passing grade, and everything else gets an F. With this grading system, it’s not surprising that opponents of climate action have found a way to give global warming research an F.
[...]
The familiar idea of a 10-point scale is a handy tool for unpacking binaries into spectrums. In my book Finding Goldilocks, this tool is applied to both mental health problems and political issues.

For example, here is a spectrum for treating perfectionism:
10_point_scale.png
 

huey 2

Super Anarchist
3,429
1,657
syd
The Australian Prime Ministers Science Awards 2022

Two Awards for Studies of the Oceans

Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year​

Dr Adele Morrison of the Australian National University has received the 2022 Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year.

The prize recognises her innovative modelling of the Southern Ocean to understand how ocean circulation impacts Earth’s climate system.

Read more about Dr Adele Morrison.

The Big Prize for this Year​

Prime Minister’s Prize for Science​

Professor Trevor McDougall AC from UNSW has received the 2022 Prime Minister’s Prize for Science.

Professor Trevor McDougall has had a transformative impact on the study of oceanography and ocean thermodynamics, and in furthering our understanding of the role of the ocean in regulating the Earth’s climate.

Read more about Professor Trevor McDougall AC.
 

huey 2

Super Anarchist
3,429
1,657
syd
 

Student_Driver

Super Anarchist
1,794
163
Darien
I have a few questions

What percentage of the total carbon budget of sources and sinks does anthropogenic contribution amount to?

I believe that it’s less than 20%. Others may know, but I think that it’s around 500 giga tons per annum with the oceans being both the largest source and the largest sink. I believe humans are around 80 giga tons.

Imagine what that implies in terms of our ability to stay warm, fed and healthy and simultaneously reduce CO2.

What percentage of current human co2 reduction would be needed to reduce total carbon sources by 10%. I think that the answer is over 50%.

How many of you have decreased your co2 meaningfully? If you drive a Tesla, that does not count. First your car caused huge environmental impact to be built and most of the electrical energy in the grid is fossil fuel based. So it not obvious that the impact of production will ever be offset.

Have you stopped traveling? Are u keeping clothes for 20 years? Buying smaller tvs? Gotten rid of aircon.

By the way, all these sacrifices are negated by emerging market growth fueled by coal with minimal pollution controls.

Unless I am mistaken co2 concentration's have been over 20 times current levels in the past. IIRC ice samples may indicate that temp rises preceded co2 increases by more than 100K years.

Temperature records are statistically created and highly complex with many assumptions and variables. Furthermore, the original data record for NASA Goddard has been modified heavily and IIRC the raw data and methodology for statistical adjustments have not been completely made public. Only modified data sets.

Temperatures were much higher than present long ago. We still can’t explain why. We had six miles of ice covering large portions of the planet less than 30 thousand years ago. It’s been warming ever since.

Scientist can not say with certainty that role co2 has or what the time lag is or how elevated co2 may cause feedbacks that counteract the impact. That’s why the scientists have different models. They are still debating which model is correct. This is a fact.

Until and unless we can explain the natural forcings/factors and the highly complex non-linear relationships and feedback mechanism, our forecasts are educated guesses. That’s why the scientists don’t agree at all. if you look at the model plots for the 40 or so models that the IPCC uses you can see huge variability in both the past and the future. In other words, dozens of teams of scientists who compromise corpus of knowledge we rely on, can’t agree on the factors, coefficients and mechanisms that describe past or future temperature. If the models don’t fit the historical record, why should we think the are acurrate.

What we are told are half truths. Part of the story we understand and other parts are still outside our understanding.

We all agree that humans are destroying planet earth in many ways including burning fossil fuels but it’s not the co2 we should worry about.

Energy poverty is a real issue. Google energy cost in Germany.

We need cheap, clean and green energy but we also need to conserve energy and use it efficiently. That’s why I’ve gone from wall street to hydrogen energy recycling as business.


Efficiency is key. My car will drive till it dies. My boat is 38 years old. I will never buy an electric car. Battery production is a horrible environmental antagonist. If you are interested in making the world better then don’t buy lots of new shit including transport, yachts etc. all of those new toys have huge carbon and other consequences. It’s hysterical that we are consuming big ticket items with huge environmental consequences for production, use and then waste material.

For those who want the pov of an actual scientist who ran a major university climate research group, take a look at Judith Curry’s web page. She is a luke-warm scientists who simply points out that the conclusions drawn by IPCC in the 20 page summary section (written by politicians and advocate) are not reflective of the uncertainties acknowledged by the scientist in the other 1350 pages of the latest Assessment Review. She had to resign her job when she began to read denier web sites and started asking uncomfortable questions.

FWIW. I am not a scientist it have spent about 1500 hours over 12 years reading articles and then following the trail of footnotes to read the actual research and data. I have read parts of the last few IPCC assessment reviews. Not all.
 
Last edited:

Student_Driver

Super Anarchist
1,794
163
Darien
Quick poll. How many of you have read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. It’s required reading for many on Wall Street. one of the five most influential books I’ve read. Up there with Fast Thinking, Slow Thinking.
 

huey 2

Super Anarchist
3,429
1,657
syd
Trisha Barraclough 🎄

@PMBarraclough
·
5h

That Queen consort person has had lunch with Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson at the same time that they're publishing truly vile/dangerous anti Meghan diatribes. We need to get out from under these dreadful racists, grifters, adulterers, loons and pedophiles
 




Top