Global Temp Changes

[DJL 232]

gowlerk

Quote

Smart, distributed power generation grids are the wave of the future. Including industrialized countries. They naturally lend themselves to solar, wind and cogeneration projects.

Hopefully they are protected against Russian and Chinese hacking by some kind of isolation as well. Tit for tat cyber wars are just around the corner.

And don't forget that Putin is up for re-election in 2018. I foresee plenty of "help" from every American who he pissed off and knows how to Photoshop him into gay porn.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[gowlerk 1,741]

Quote

And don't forget that Putin is up for re-election in 2018. I foresee plenty of "help" from every American who he pissed off and knows how to Photoshop him into gay porn.

I don't think Russians would have a problem with that. As long as Putin is seen as the dominant. The guy behind and in charge that is. They like strong men.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Royreader8812 0]

Quote

We are emitting enough CO2 to raise the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly. (50% so far)

If you read the below link, you will see that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more closely related to the reduction of biomass in the ocean, than the increase of the use of fossil fuels.

Not to say fossil fuels are not a problem, just pointing out but there are other factors that may have a stronger effect and fit the model more closely.

I am guessing you are a strong proponent of carbon dioxide creating climate change and have looked at a number of graphs on the subject.

Take one reliable graph that begins at least 100 years ago, you will find that there is a dip in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during World War II. this is a time of increased fossil fuel usage on a large scale but also a time that saw a massive reduction in fishing vessels on the ocean. This theory also explains well, the increase in CO2 pre dating the industrial revolution.

Most of our oxygen comes from the ocean and much of the CO2 has been stored there.




http://www.fisherycrisis.com/strangelove.html

[brenthutch 365]

Interesting read. Kind of throws a monkey wrench in the whole AGW theory.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

Interesting read. Kind of throws a monkey wrench in the whole AGW theory.

I don't know about a Monkey Wrench. That woman is an anti-fishing activist local to Nova Scotia. She's a biologist but I don't think her 15 year old article is exactly the bedrock of climate change information. It's a good read for it's own scope and it's well known that there's a direct link between things like whale shit, plankton, and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Royreader8812 0]

Quote

That woman is an anti-fishing activist local to Nova Scotia.

Unlike the anti oil activists?

When you just look at the decline of sharks alone, somewhere in the realm of 90% in just a few decades, it is actually frightening.

The shift from species to species as they disappear, for commercial fisheries, is a good indication of the state of the ocean. I believe there would be very few people other than those working in the fishing industry that would oppose the notion that this is a serious problem.

We were all told that the trees were the main thing to provide us with oxygen but it only makes sense that the ocean would play a greater role when you think about it and learn about it.

[Phil1111 829]

Royreader8812

Quote

That woman is an anti-fishing activist local to Nova Scotia.

Unlike the anti oil activists?

When you just look at the decline of sharks alone, somewhere in the realm of 90% in just a few decades, it is actually frightening.

The shift from species to species as they disappear, for commercial fisheries, is a good indication of the state of the ocean. I believe there would be very few people other than those working in the fishing industry that would oppose the notion that this is a serious problem.

We were all told that the trees were the main thing to provide us with oxygen but it only makes sense that the ocean would play a greater role when you think about it and learn about it.

I suppose it was only a matter of time...

...That you and I agree on something! Don't get me started on Chinese consumption of shark fin soup. Outlaw fishing ships, trawl nets, bilge-water dumping by tankers, etc.

The oceans have the biggest role in global warming.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/

Above from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripps_Institution_of_Oceanography

Although I believe we need greater photosynthesis through algae, trees, etc. to convert increasing co2 to o2.

For now, détente, I guess, comrade.

[DJL 232]

I'm with you 100% on the issues of overfishing and it's effect on the environment and ecosystem. I grew up on salt water, fisherman, blue water sailor. I'm just saying that her article isn't the "end all" of environmental discussion....unless.....unlesss.............Dammit, IT'S A DOUMENTARY!!!

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,099]

>If you read the below link, you will see that the increase of carbon dioxide in the
>atmosphere is more closely related to the reduction of biomass in the ocean, than
>the increase of the use of fossil fuels.

Three things wrong with that article.

One is the statement "A DYING SEA WILL PREDICTABLY EXHALE CO2 <==> AND EARTH’S OCEAN IS DYING!" All caps and bolding aside, that's a simplification. If we remove lots of the animal life (i.e. overfish) then CO2 generation goes down, since fish generate CO2 and phytoplankton removes it. And we don't harvest phytoplankton on anything like the scale we harvest fish.

Two is that the ocean is, in fact, absorbing CO2, and thus slowing the rate of rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. This can be proven by looking at CO2 concentration increases in the ocean. (This presents its own problems, like acidification.)

Three is that the amount of CO2 we are emitting is very close to the excess amount we are seeing in the atmosphere. The biosphere is able to handle a small amount of the excess (which is why the two numbers don't match exactly) but beyond that amount, atmospheric CO2 rise (plus oceanic absorption) closely matches emitted CO2 from anthropogenic sources.

[kallend 1,499]

Royreader8812

Quote

We are emitting enough CO2 to raise the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly. (50% so far)

If you read the below link, you will see ...

No, all I see is someone's opinion that doesn't seem very well grounded.

...

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

[Royreader8812 0]

Lol

So I guess the term biological pump was just made by the author for shits and giggles, and marine life playing a vital role in storing carbon deep in the ocean is an unfounded assumption.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pump

[DJL 232]

Royreader8812

Lol

So I guess the term biological pump was just made by the author for shits and giggles, and marine life playing a vital role in storing carbon deep in the ocean is an unfounded assumption.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pump

I think you're all just trying to hand to pigeon-hole each other on absolutive details. There are many parts of the puzzle and they all contribute to the whole. Just because you can pin down a few doesn't mean you can't figure out the picture.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 365]

It is more than a "pigeon-hole". The oceans as a whole can either be out gassing our up taking, they can not be doing both.

[billvon 2,099]

>So I guess the term biological pump was just made by the author for shits and
>giggles, and marine life playing a vital role in storing carbon deep in the ocean is an
>unfounded assumption.

Marine life does play a vital role in storing deep carbon. The author is just oversimplifying the issue; overfishing does not have the effect she thinks it does.

If we took all the phytoplankton out of the ocean for good we would kill it - and that that point, climate change would be the least of our worries. But we're not doing that; we don't eat phytoplankton. We eat fish. And fish are CO2 sources.

So the ocean is indeed critical, and not overfishing is a very good idea for several reasons. But the answer to the question:

"in our ongoing experiment, (pulling everything that we can catch out of the sea), are we working towards the creation of a human-induced, modern “Strangelove Ocean”...a sea bereft of life, that exhales CO2?"

. . . is no.

That being said, I am all for reducing the levels of fishing we are currently seeing around the world.

[Phil1111 829]

gowlerk

Quote

Smart, distributed power generation grids are the wave of the future. Including industrialized countries. They naturally lend themselves to solar, wind and cogeneration projects.

Hopefully they are protected against Russian and Chinese hacking by some kind of isolation as well. Tit for tat cyber wars are just around the corner.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-hacks-into-ukraine-power-grids-may-be-a-sign-of-things-to-come/#

[Royreader8812 0]

Quote

Marine life does play a vital role in storing deep carbon. The author is just oversimplifying the issue; overfishing does not have the effect she thinks it does.

If we took all the phytoplankton out of the ocean for good we would kill it - and that that point, climate change would be the least of our worries. But we're not doing that; we don't eat phytoplankton. We eat fish. And fish are CO2 sources.

I believe you are the one over simplifying it. Though it is good to see you are starting to accept that this is relevant.

Yes ocean fauna produces carbon dioxide through respiration, but they sequester much more than they produce through the formation of calcium carbonate, and the consumption of their follow beings creating it.

All the limestone you have ever seen in your life and that includes a portion of the concrete you see in the cities, is sequestered carbon dioxide.

Removing a significant proportion of ocean fauna will have a much more profound effect on the natural carbon sequestration cycle, than you seem willing to accept.

Marine life does play a vital role in storing deep carbon. The author is just oversimplifying the issue; overfishing does not have the effect she thinks it does.

[billvon 2,099]

>Yes ocean fauna produces carbon dioxide through respiration, but they sequester
>much more than they produce through the formation of calcium carbonate . . .

You're talking about coral (dead coral is made of calcium carbonate, and is one of the biggest carbon sinks in the ocean.) Two problems there:

1) We don't eat coral, so the author's concerns about overfishing do not really apply.

2) High CO2 concentrations raise the pH of ocean water, which kills coral. Warmer than normal water also stresses coral and makes it less likely to survive. So while it's a problem, it's caused by too-high CO2 levels; it's not _causing_ too-high CO2 levels. (Although that may start functioning as a positive feedback mechanism soon if coral bleaching continues.)

>Removing a significant proportion of ocean fauna will have a much more profound
>effect on the natural carbon sequestration cycle, than you seem willing to accept.

Again, she is talking about overfishing, not removing phytoplankton (which absolutely would be a disaster) zooplankton (less of disaster but still very very bad) or removing coral. Removing the top of any food chain is less damaging than removing the bottom, but any drastic alterations in any food chain has repercussions.

[billvon 2,099]

And the latest on that "record global cooling":

===========================================
Weather buoy near North Pole hits melting point
By Jason Samenow December 22 at 12:36 PM

A weather buoy about 90 miles south of the North Pole registered a temperature at the melting point of 32 degrees (0 Celsius) early Thursday, as a giant storm east of Greenland drew abnormally warm air northward.

Weather models had predicted temperatures could get this warm and this buoy, part of the North Pole Environmental Observatory, provides validation.

“It seems likely areas very close to or at the North Pole were at the freezing point” Thursday, said Zachary Labe, a doctoral student researching Arctic climate and weather at the University of California at Irvine.

Data from the buoy (No. 300234064010010, which can be downloaded here) show that air temperatures have risen more than 40 degrees in the past two days, when they hovered near minus-11 degrees (minus-24 Celsius) which, even then, was above average.

The entire Arctic north of 80 degrees, roughly the size of the Lower 48 states, has witnessed a sharp temperature spike reaching levels 30-35 degrees (nearly 20 Celsius) above normal. In reviewing historical records back to 1958, one cannot find a more intense anomaly – except following a similar spike just five weeks ago.

Consider the average temperature in this large region is about minus-20 degrees (minus-29 Celsius) at this time of year, but had shot up to 12 Thursday.

Labe said the huge flux of warmth into the region may have contributed to the loss of sea ice at a time when the region is usually gaining ice.

Near the Franz Joseph Islands east of Svalbard, satellite imagery shows a large mass of ice vanishing over the last day. “This is pretty dramatic,” he tweeted.

Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicate the Arctic lost about 57,000 square miles of ice (148,000 square kilometers) in the past day, which is roughly the size of Illinois. Labe cautioned, however, the ice loss data are preliminary and require quality control.

In Longyearbyen, Norway, which is on the island of Svalbard in the Nordic Seas, the high reached 36 degrees Thursday, according to Weather Underground, beating the old daily record of 33 degrees.
======================================

But it's not all bad news for you. Since it's so very far above normal (35 degrees F or so) when it does descend back down to a mere 2F above average, which it likely will do, you can again ask "why isn't anyone talking about this RECORD COOLING TREND?"

[Royreader8812 0]

I am talking about molluscs, actually.

[kallend 1,499]

Average Arctic sea ice extent for November set a record low, reflecting unusually high air temperatures, winds from the south, and a warm ocean. Since October, Arctic ice extent has been more than two standard deviations lower than the long-term average. Antarctic sea ice extent quickly declined in November, also setting a record low for the month and tracking more than two standard deviations below average during the entire month. For the globe as a whole, sea ice cover was exceptionally low.

In November 2016, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 9.08 million square kilometers (3.51 million square miles), the lowest November in the satellite record. This is 800,000 square kilometers (309,000 square miles) below November 2006, the previous lowest November, and 1.95 million square kilometers (753,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average for November. For the month, ice extent was 3.2 standard deviations below the long-term average, a larger departure than observed in September 2012 when the Arctic summer minimum extent hit a record low.

...

This year, Antarctic sea ice reached its annual maximum extent on August 31, much earlier than average, and has since been declining at a fairly rapid pace, tracking more than two standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average. This led to a new record low for the month of November over the period of satellite observations (Figure 5a). Average extent in November was 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). This was 1.0 million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) below the previous record low of 15.54 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles) set in 1986 and 1.81 million square kilometers (699,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average.

For the month, Antarctic ice extent was 5.7 standard deviations below the long-term average. This departure from average was more than twice as large as the previous record departure from average, set in November 1986.

nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/12/arctic-and-antarctic-at-record-low-levels/

...

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

[rushmc 18]

billvon

And the latest on that "record global cooling":

===========================================
Weather buoy near North Pole hits melting point
By Jason Samenow December 22 at 12:36 PM

A weather buoy about 90 miles south of the North Pole registered a temperature at the melting point of 32 degrees (0 Celsius) early Thursday, as a giant storm east of Greenland drew abnormally warm air northward.

Weather models had predicted temperatures could get this warm and this buoy, part of the North Pole Environmental Observatory, provides validation.

“It seems likely areas very close to or at the North Pole were at the freezing point” Thursday, said Zachary Labe, a doctoral student researching Arctic climate and weather at the University of California at Irvine.

Data from the buoy (No. 300234064010010, which can be downloaded here) show that air temperatures have risen more than 40 degrees in the past two days, when they hovered near minus-11 degrees (minus-24 Celsius) which, even then, was above average.

The entire Arctic north of 80 degrees, roughly the size of the Lower 48 states, has witnessed a sharp temperature spike reaching levels 30-35 degrees (nearly 20 Celsius) above normal. In reviewing historical records back to 1958, one cannot find a more intense anomaly – except following a similar spike just five weeks ago.

Consider the average temperature in this large region is about minus-20 degrees (minus-29 Celsius) at this time of year, but had shot up to 12 Thursday.

Labe said the huge flux of warmth into the region may have contributed to the loss of sea ice at a time when the region is usually gaining ice.

Near the Franz Joseph Islands east of Svalbard, satellite imagery shows a large mass of ice vanishing over the last day. “This is pretty dramatic,” he tweeted.

Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicate the Arctic lost about 57,000 square miles of ice (148,000 square kilometers) in the past day, which is roughly the size of Illinois. Labe cautioned, however, the ice loss data are preliminary and require quality control.

In Longyearbyen, Norway, which is on the island of Svalbard in the Nordic Seas, the high reached 36 degrees Thursday, according to Weather Underground, beating the old daily record of 33 degrees.
======================================

But it's not all bad news for you. Since it's so very far above normal (35 degrees F or so) when it does descend back down to a mere 2F above average, which it likely will do, you can again ask "why isn't anyone talking about this RECORD COOLING TREND?"

So now you want to talk about weather?

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

[billvon 2,099]

>So now you want to talk about weather?

Your post was about weather - a temporary dip in temperature. So was mine.

But if you want to go back to talking about climate, great!

[kallend 1,499]

There has been no pause in ocean warming:

advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

...

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

[winsor 158]

Alarmist or Denier, the issue is on a par with worrying about the heartbreak of psoriasis on a Stage 4 cancer patient.

We have real problems, and nothing Al Gore recommends can do a damned thing about it.

[gowlerk 1,741]

So....Winsor, are you actually buying this?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.