Global warming traps scientists in ice

[brenthutch 388]

kallend

Apparently you have also drunk of the deniers' Kool Aid with respect to the "disappearing" heat. It hasn't disappeared. Even the author of the study that the deniers keep crowing over says as much.

There is NO hiatus.

What would it take to change your mind? It is clear that you do not trust your lying eyes. If global temperatures were to suddenly accelerate over a 15 year period, I would reassess my position. What would it take for you to reassess your's?

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

Apparently you have also drunk of the deniers' Kool Aid with respect to the "disappearing" heat. It hasn't disappeared. Even the author of the study that the deniers keep crowing over says as much.

There is NO hiatus.

John:

I'm so glad to know that the absence of evidence to support a theory is conclusive proof of the theory's validity.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 388]

If you can not predict the pause you can not explain the cause.
Apparently "climate scientists" have just discovered the pacific decadal oscillation.

[lawrocket 3]

brenthutch

If you can not predict the pause you can not explain the cause.
Apparently "climate scientists" have just discovered the pacific decadal oscillation.

Kallend says there is no pause. The heat is in the ocean. In deeper layers. I took a look. While there isn't data for deep ocean, there is some actually observational data to support this.

The ARGO page shows that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 °C. [Url]http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html[/url]

Now the big issues are:
(1) How is 0.06C change in sea temperature at shallow-to-midlevel ocean depth a problem? I.e., how is that additional heat going to get into the atmosphere and change the climate we live in?  
(2) It does make some sense (2nd law of thermodynamics) that heat moves to the deep ocean. This law would seemingly be violated by having 1.06 degree C water transfer heat to 3 degree C water up above.
(3) Is mother nature foiling the grand plans of the Koch brothers, oil industry and the Republican by sequestering heat into the deep oceans where it doesn't do any harm?
(4) Since the density of water increases from 0 degrees C to 4 degrees C (yes, kallend, I paid attention to your lesson on density) might deep ocean heating be caausing thermal contraction at the coldest deep ocean spots, thus resulting in a balancing out of thermal expansion at upper levels?

All these questions. Assuming deep ocean sequester is true, it looks like it may be the answer to the problems.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,651]

brenthutch

If you can not predict the pause you can not explain the cause.
Apparently "climate scientists" have just discovered the pacific decadal oscillation.

I cannot predict exactly where icicles will form and the water will run when the snow on the roof of my house melts. However, I can be quite confident that the snow WILL melt and the water will run off once spring comes. If the icicles form and the water runs off in different places than I expect, it doesn't invalidate the thaw.

Your arguments are, as usual, facile.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

lawrocket

All these questions. Assuming deep ocean sequester is true, it looks like it may be the answer to the problems.

Compare the thermal capacity of the oceans to that of the atmosphere.

Hints. The specific heat of water is approx. 4x that of air.
The mass of the oceans is 1.4x10^21kg
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.15×10^18 kg

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***

All these questions. Assuming deep ocean sequester is true, it looks like it may be the answer to the problems.

Compare the thermal capacity of the oceans to that of the atmosphere.

Hints. The specific heat of water is approx. 4x that of air.
The mass of the oceans is 1.4x10^21kg
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.15×10^18 kg

Yes. I understand that. Which is why I am thinking that sequestering heat in the deep ocean (where it takes a lot more energy to heat than the atmosphere) and where it will be effectively sequestered would actually be a benefit. The deep ocean takes the heat and keeps it.

Question: what sort of chaos can you see being caused by the .06C temperature increase? Because I can't see much.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 388]

kallend

***If you can not predict the pause you can not explain the cause.
Apparently "climate scientists" have just discovered the pacific decadal oscillation.

I cannot predict exactly where icicles will form and the water will run when the snow on the roof of my house melts. However, I can be quite confident that the snow WILL melt and the water will run off once spring comes. If the icicles form and the water runs off in different places than I expect, it doesn't invalidate the thaw.



I'll help you out, try looking in the vicinity of the fascia. (water, unlike heat, tends to flow in a downward direction.)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Which is why I am thinking that sequestering heat in the deep ocean (where it takes a lot more energy to heat than the atmosphere) and where it will be effectively sequestered would actually be a benefit. The deep ocean takes the heat and keeps it.

Question: what sort of chaos can you see being caused by the .06C temperature increase? Because I can't see much.

I can see a scenario where small temperature changes could have a catastrophic effect. Large deposits of methane hydrates exist in the ocean at depths down to ~3,000m. Methane hydrate is a clathrate of water and methane, with the methane trapped in a lattice of water. This structure is very sensitive to pressure and temperature (see the stability curve here, just scroll down a bit). Warming of the deep ocean could easily "melt" these clathrates, starting with the ones at shallower depths, resulting in release of large amount of methane. Methane will displace oxygen from water, resulting in anoxic oceans with obvious bad consequences for any marine organisms that need oxygen. Methane will be released to the atmosphere, and as methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than C02 is, temperatures will rise, warming the deep ocean even more and resulting in release of even more methane in a positive feedback loop that might continue until all the methane currently locked in methane hydrate is released.

There is pretty good evidence that release of methane in this manner contributed to the mass extinction event at the end of the Permian, which resulted in the extinction of >95% of all marine species, and >80% of terrestrial life forms. That event was most likely started by release of large amounts of C02 due to a supervolcano erupting through massive coal deposits in the Siberian Trapps. The effect of the C02 was magnified by the release of additional methane. The oceans became anoxic, and were dominated by sulfur-fixing bacteria, the kind that forms that black stinky scum in stagnant water. On land, not only were temperatures scorchingly hot, oxygen partial pressures fell to levels currently found ~15,000 feet (where we need to provide supplemental oxygen on planes).

What concerns me is that we do not know where the threshold is to start this process. Methane hydrate stability is affected by pressure (=water depth) and temperature. Shallower deposits will release methane gas with less heating than deeper deposits, so there is no one water temperature we can confidently point to and say nothing will happen as long as we don't cross this line. Once the process starts, the huge heat capacity of the ocean will ensure that there will be no way to reverse the process.

I think many people (I suspect including you, Jerry) make the mistake of thinking the effect of temperature on climate will always be linear, so incremental increases in temperature will only produce incremental changes in climate. The history of past climates suggests otherwise; non-linear processes (such as melting of methane hydrates) can produce radical changes in climate triggered by relatively small changes in temperature. Climate sensitivity to perturbation has (over geological time) been influenced by factors such as distribution of land masses; clumping of tectonic plates into supercontinents such as Pangea or Gondwana, or presence of land at the poles (as we have today) is associated with less stable climates.

The speed of change is also important, as that will influence potentially stabilizing forces. For example, slow warming of the deep ocean could allow methane released from shallow hydrates to be trapped in new methane hydrates forming at deeper depths, with little net release. Fast warming could dump methane into the water/atmosphere faster than it can be redistributed to deeper deposits or consumed by methane-fixing bacteria.

I think we are playing with a system we do not understand, but one that past history has shown to be capable of rapid jumps from one state to another as opposed to slow gradual change. I think that is very unwise.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 1,651]

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'; Upton Sinclair.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

lawrocket

******

All these questions. Assuming deep ocean sequester is true, it looks like it may be the answer to the problems.

Compare the thermal capacity of the oceans to that of the atmosphere.

Hints. The specific heat of water is approx. 4x that of air.
The mass of the oceans is 1.4x10^21kg
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.15×10^18 kg

Yes. I understand that. Which is why I am thinking that sequestering heat in the deep ocean (where it takes a lot more energy to heat than the atmosphere) and where it will be effectively sequestered would actually be a benefit. The deep ocean takes the heat and keeps it.

Question: what sort of chaos can you see being caused by the .06C temperature increase? Because I can't see much.

As the oceanographers keep telling us, we know less about Earth's oceans than we do about the surface of Mars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

As the oceanographers keep telling us, we know less about Earth's oceans than we do about the surface of Mars.

this statement perfectly exposes the arrogance of the climate alarmists

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,651]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."; Upton Sinclair.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

rushmc

***

As the oceanographers keep telling us, we know less about Earth's oceans than we do about the surface of Mars.

this statement perfectly exposes the arrogance of the climate alarmistsHow so? Is the statement untrue?

I think the statement is highly relevant to the "ignorance is bliss", "hold my beer and watch this" attitude of those who are willing to gamble with the planet's climate.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'; Upton Sinclair.

If you repeat it enough, people will believe it. To a point.

But what about the science? Your refusal to comment on that is telling. Does your pay depend on the laws of thermodynamics? If not, then explain to me how that heat in the deep ocean can moves itself from colder area to warmer areas?

Or has the climate science community proposed a valid mechanism for perpetual motion? There are the laws of thermodynamics, but then again, you never studied law.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,651]

lawrocket

*** 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'; Upton Sinclair.

If you repeat it enough, people will believe it. To a point.

But what about the science? Your refusal to comment on that is telling. Does your pay depend on the laws of thermodynamics? If not, then explain to me how that heat in the deep ocean can moves itself from colder area to warmer areas?

Or has the climate science community proposed a valid mechanism for perpetual motion? There are the laws of thermodynamics, but then again, you never studied law.

Did you ever notice how cold ice floats on warmer water? Did they mention that in law school? Perhaps the captain of the Titanic was a lawyer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Excellent post. I'll hit some points of discussion.

(1) Hydrates have been discussed for a long time here. I agree there is a potential for trouble. I think we can test in a lab the various pressure depths and temperatures that would cause phase transition. But, like CO2, we probably cannot account for all of nature's variables. But it can certainy lead to a positive feedback loop.

I also note that shallower depths provide a bigger issue, not just because they are easier to heat but shallower depth doesn't allow much space for CH4 to dissolve. (And having gone to college within breathing distance of Coal Oil Point, I can tell you that methane clouds blowing by provide a distinctly unpleasant smell.)

There are other feedbacks that worry me more. The main one being water vapor. Ocean surface is easier to heat. It heats. Evaporates ito atmosphere. Causes more ocean heating, which evaporates more into atmosphere. Etc. I don't know why this one isn't mentioned. That's how a runaway greenhouse effect occurs.

(2) "I think many people (I suspect including you, Jerry) make the mistake of thinking the effect of temperature on climate will always be linear, so incremental increases in temperature will only produce incremental changes in climate."

Actually, it's the deniers who are saying that climate has never been stable or smooth. Deniers have always said that natural variations are huge! And that even slight differences that we see in nature have had tremendous consequences and will continue.

It's the alarmist side that says that extreme events aren't natural. Check out billvon's history of insisting that we've never seen chanhes come this quickly. According to you (and I agree with you) we sure as hell have. I have never thought climate change would be smooth.

I have merely said that 2100 will not be fire and brimstone. I have over the past several years maintained that climate change is real, humans are A cause of it, but that the effects will be mild and well within our ability to adapt and cope.

Climate historically makes HUGE changes in short times. Whole spruce forests changed to pine forests in 50 years in the Northeast US 10k years ago. A whole archipelago called New York City was created by climate change. And rather suddenly.

The AGW narrative requires that sudden changes and events be forgotten which enables attribution of every drought or flood to climate change.

That is my problem: deniers APPRECIATE the sudden changes that can occur, are occurring, and will occur and that the earth is never "in balance." Versus the consensus narrative that WEATHER is stable and unchanging except for mild over the course of thousands of years until humans stepped in.

A new ice age can occur with a drop of 4 or 5 degrees C. I know that. Because it's happened so many times.

(3) "Climate sensitivity to perturbation has (over geological time) been influenced by factors such as distribution of land masses; clumping of tectonic plates into supercontinents such as Pangea or Gondwana, or presence of land at the poles (as we have today) is associated with less stable climates. "

Of course. When we had Pangea, can you imagine what hurricanes must have been like? All these things influence climate, and geography probably has the greatest effect on the ocean.

But the biiggest cliamte sensitivity we're discussing is climate sensitivity to CO2. We don't know what that sensitivity is. The IPCC estimates between 2 and 5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. I allege that the past couple of decades suggests a sensitivity of probably under 1 degree C. Yes, this can mean a lot. It can also mean relatively little. The ENSO gives temperature changes greater than that, meaning that such a change is within the realm of natural variability should I be correct.

One thing is pretty certain - it won't be until at least 2050 before we have any idea what the deep ocean temperatures are doing.

(4) "I think we are playing with a system we do not understand, but one that past history has shown to be capable of rapid jumps from one state to another as opposed to slow gradual change. I think that is very unwise."

You had just finished mentioning "speed of change." And have confirmed that the climate can and does change quickly with or without us. This is nature. And we, as people, have done a good job of adapting to this changing climate. And even adapting the climate.

We know of places where hydrates are found. The Deepwater Horizon disaster put clathrates into the collective conscience. That was 2000 meters deep in the Gulf of Mexico (a pretty highly regarded warm water body that powers lots of hurricanes). Much of this was likely gaseous CH4 which formed into a hydrate when mixed with water. It was pretty much flash hydrate synthesis - so quick at that depth that it iced over mitigation technologies and rendered them useless.

Rather than dealing with hydrate ablation, it was accreting too rapidly to work around it. I tend to view evidence like this as an indication that hydrate gassification is not an immediate risk at depths that are less than the average ocean depth (greater than 4200 meters) and average ocean temperature (3.9 degrees C).

From a climate standpoint, sea surface temperature is what we should be worried most about.

But some great points, Don. There is a lot we don't understand. I think it's time we stop acting like the science is settled.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,651]

lawrocket

There is a lot we don't understand. I think it's time we stop acting like the science is settled.

A lot IS settled.

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Measurable, measured, proven.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased dramatically over the past 150 years. Measured. Proven.

The CO2 increase is completely consistent with known human activity. Measured. Proven.

Just because we're not yet smart enough to know EXACTLY how various very complex feedback mechanisms operate, and where the heat ends up, is not a good reason to deny that anything untoward is happening.

Climate change does not mean that October 201x will always be warmer in Chicago than October 201(x-1) like brenthutch keeps braying, or that Arctic sea ice in February 201x will always be less than in February 201(x-1).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

GeorgiaDon

******

As the oceanographers keep telling us, we know less about Earth's oceans than we do about the surface of Mars.

this statement perfectly exposes the arrogance of the climate alarmistsHow so? Is the statement untrue?

I think the statement is highly relevant to the "ignorance is bliss", "hold my beer and watch this" attitude of those who are willing to gamble with the planet's climate.

Don

Most of your post starts from a flawed premise
however
My point is what is happening is so complex we are a long way from really knowing
We really do not know average (anything weather) really is as we only look at it in the context of a generation or three

The alarmist try to simplify it saying
CO2 is up
Temps are up
CO2 is causing the rise
Man is increasing the CO2 so man is to blame

Measurements were taken
Theories were developed
Predictions were made
Observations did not meet the predictions

So
The AWG crowd doubles down
Too hot? AWG
Too cold? AWG
Too dry? AWG
Too wet? AWG
Too windy? AWG
Stronger storms? AWG
Weaker storms? AWG
More storms? Awg
Fewer storms? Awg

Hmm
guess they cant lose now huh.....

Anyway
I am not willing to gamble my freedom to those who would control us under the lie that is AWG today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*** There is a lot we don't understand. I think it's time we stop acting like the science is settled.

A lot IS settled.

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Measurable, measured, proven.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased dramatically over the past 150 years. Measured. Proven.

The CO2 increase is completely consistent with known human activity. Measured. Proven.

Just because we're not yet smart enough to know EXACTLY how various very complex feedback mechanisms operate, and where the heat ends up, is not a good reason to deny that anything untoward is happening.

Climate change does not mean that October 201x will always be warmer in Chicago than October 201(x-1) like brenthutch keeps braying, or that Arctic sea ice in February 201x will always be less than in February 201(x-1).

But the temps have not increased as the alarmist predicted
There is where you problem lies
This and the fact that you and others work hard to over simplify what is happening

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

A lot IS settled.

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Measurable, measured, proven.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased dramatically over the past 150 years. Measured. Proven.

The CO2 increase is completely consistent with known human activity. Measured. Proven.

I agree with this. But when you start putting those adverbs in there you sound more like rhetoric.

Quote

Just because we're not yet smart enough to know EXACTLY how various very complex feedback mechanisms operate, and where the heat ends up, is not a good reason to deny that anything untoward is happening.

Of course. Why'd you put "EXACTLY" in there, though? This isn't an all or nothing.

Quote

Climate change does not mean that October 201x will always be warmer in Chicago than October 201(x-1) like brenthutch keeps braying, or that Arctic sea ice in February 201x will always be less than in February 201(x-1).

Of course. But nor does climate change mean every bad event. CLimate change doesn't mean that October 2014 will be cooler than October 2114, does it? Nor does it mean that Arctic sea ice won't increase.

It's actually nice that people are saying this. It DOESN'T mean all those awful things.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

this is interesting to read
Obama claims that CA's drought is being causes by AWG
When the science has no clear link

My point is more to what you say about the alarmists losing credibility by doing this

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html

From the link

Quote

In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.


“I’m pretty sure the severity of this thing is due to natural variability,” said Richard Seager, a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

I took my kids out to see Marine One and Air Force One on Friday. I'm well aware of what the President said.

He said that the drought is just climate change. And that farmers need to learn to conserve (mind you, farmers pretty much invented water conservation since it costs them less to use them less) and basically that the Pacific ocean needs the water more than farmers. But here's a $150 million for you for the unemployed workers. Please check out the climate hubs.

It certainly has rankled some. No proposed solution, but a handout. Welfare instead of water.

My opinion? Water conservation also includes storage. Conserving means using less and saving. Problem is that a nice juicy peach can't be nice and juicy without water. The farmers aren't the end users - the consumers are.

A good El Nino would be nice for us. We haven't had one since 1998. Or any El Nino in five years.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ChrisD 0]

Here's one you guys might enjoy?

I'm not sure of the name, it's something like the Great Lakes Conservation Lobby??? Anyways,...

They are laying the legal groundwork to stop the Government from taking water out of the Great Lakes and pipe-lining it to Nebraska and points west. Of course companies like Felker steel and others have a different viewpoint about this, anyways, sorry to bust in like this but it seemed an appropriate bit of real world fact and some actions that people concerned with GWT are taking right now! I'll post a link if I can remember where I put it, in the future.
C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[lawrocket 3]

Not a bad point. Ogalalla is being depleted quicker than it can be filled. Much like here in the central valley, they have to go deeper and deeper with the wells to get the water.

So it's up to policy. That policy should have been clarified 40 years ago. But it doesn't appear that Congress is willing to clarify it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.