On the day Obama announces a new plan to curb CO2 emissions, this statement comes along…
These changes would linger even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future
From the Carnegie Institution:
Washington, DC–Continuing current carbon dioxide (CO2) emission trends throughout this century and beyond would leave a legacy of heat and acidity in the deep ocean. These changes would linger even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future, according to a new Nature Climate Change paper from an international team including Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira. This is due to the tremendous inertia of the ocean system.
Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean and forms carbonic acid, inhibiting coral reef growth and threatening marine life.
Some experts propose that climate and chemical damage due to high levels of greenhouse gases could be avoided by removing active carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, processes broadly called CDR for carbon dioxide removal. One idea is that fast-growing trees such as poplars, which consume a great deal of carbon dioxide during growth, could be farmed and then burned in bioenergy plants where their carbon dioxide would captured and stored underground instead of released back into the atmosphere. However, none of the proposed removal-and-storage strategies have been proven at an industrial scale yet, and ideas such as poplar farming would have to be carefully balanced against land use for food production.
Using computer modeling to investigate the success of CDR strategies, the team discovered that the clock is ticking for CDR to substantially reduce risks to much marine life. If these processes are applied too late, they might as well not be applied at all, as far as ocean acidification is concerned, the team found.
“Geoengineering measures are currently being debated as a kind of last resort to avoid dangerous climate change–either in the case that policymakers find no agreement to cut CO2emissions, or to delay the transformation of our energy systems,” said lead-author Sabine Mathesius from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “However, looking at the oceans we see that this approach carries great risks.”
As policymakers consider what might occur if various near- to mid-term climate policy targets are not achieved, it becomes increasingly important to understand what happens if society exceeds these targets.
“If we overspend our carbon dioxide emission budget now, can we make up for it by paying back a carbon dioxide debt later?” asked Caldeira, who worked on this issue during a research stay at PIK. “Can later carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere offset today’s emissions?”
The team conducted a computer experiment and simulated different rates of carbon dioxide extraction from the atmosphere. One of these rates, 22 billion tons per year, would remove carbon dioxide at slightly more than half current emission rates. Another was the probably unfeasible rate of more than 90 billion tons per year, which is more than two times today’s yearly emissions. The experiment did not account for the availability of technologies for extraction and storage.
“Interestingly, it turns out that after business-as-usual until 2150, even taking such enormous amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would not help life that exists deep in the ocean very much. After large-scale ocean circulation has transported acidified water to great depths, it is out of reach for many centuries, no matter how much carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere,” Caldeira said.
The scientists’ model also looked at increasing temperatures and decreasing concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the sea. Oxygen is, of course, vital for many creatures. The warming reduces ocean circulation, harming nutrient transport. Together with acidification, these changes put heavy pressures on marine life. Earlier in Earth’s history, such changes have led to mass extinctions. However, the combined effect of all three factors has not yet been fully understood.
“In the deep ocean, the chemical echo of this century’s CO2 pollution will reverberate for thousands of years,” said co-author John Schellnhuber, director of PIK. “If we do not implement emissions reductions measures in line with the 2 degrees Celsius target in time, we will not be able to preserve ocean life as we know it.”
###
Ken Caldeira’s participation in this project was supported by the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research and the Carnegie Institution for Science endowment.
“On the day Obama announces a new plan to curb CO2 emissions, this statement comes along…”
obama cares not about CO2 – mm global warming/climate change is a wrecking ball he swings against America.
Exactly correct — CO_2 reduction doesn’t matter insofar as the climate is concerned, but huge, mandated reductions really do matter for the U.S. economy and, as you noted, the purpose is to wreck the economy.
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know….it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ….. well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.
I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippinesin 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it!!!!
Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the westernUSA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax……give the world a hug and have a nice day!!
Absolutely SPOT ON.
Let me get this straight. The magic CO2 molecule causes rapid warming of the oceans, but keeps the ocean warm for a very long time because of the “tremendous inertia”. So this thermal inertia only works one way. The stupid is strong with this one…
When you start your abstract with complete nonsense, you can expect the rest to follow suit
“Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean and forms carbonic acid, inhibiting coral reef growth and threatening marine life.”
May as well write…
Flatulance emitted by unicorns not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean and forms carbonic acid, inhibiting coral reef growth and threatening marine life.”
“One idea is that fast-growing trees such as poplars, which consume a great deal of carbon dioxide during growth, could be farmed and then burned in bioenergy plants where their carbon dioxide would captured and stored underground instead of released back into the atmosphere. However, none of the proposed removal-and-storage strategies have been proven at an industrial scale yet, and ideas such as poplar farming would have to be carefully balanced against land use for food production.”
One lot of nonsense followed by the absurd. Queensland Government spent close to $500million on carbon capture and failed. So these people are waiting for a unicorn to magically appear on a magic carpet. Good luck with that but at least it keeps them safe and off the street.
“Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification.”
Is this claim based on solid data, or just a
predictionprojection based on computer models?AMEN ONE OF THE WORSE OPINION PIECES EVER APPEARING ON THESE PAGES.
It’s amazing that they keep claiming ocean acidification when none has ever been seen. They just assume it happens and ignore the facts that carbonic acid is a weak acid and that seawater is a complex buffer solution that cannot be pushed around by CO2 dissolved in it.
Furthermore, the illogical next assumption is that acidification would be bad for shelled organisms and coral reefs, which begs the fact that most sea organisms evolved under much higher concentrations of CO2 and that no acidity released by carbonic acid can alter it’s own equilibrium, which includes the long chain of equilibrium from carbonic acid to calcium carbonate. Then, add to that the fact that calcium carbonate is less soluble in warm water than cool, and you have coral reefs thriving with warmer oceans, from having more building material and a more stable product.
Anyone who thinks oceans can warm and absorb CO2 at the same time has never watched a cold beer go flat as it approaches room temperature. I have no advanced degree, but I understand observation of reality
The same thought occurred to me. These alarmists want it both ways. The “tremendous inertia of the ocean system” does not slow magical CO2 from causing “rapid warming” and an “unprecedented rate of ocean acidification,” but it will cause these changes to linger “for many centuries, no matter how much carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.” If high temperatures and low pH can linger in the oceans for centuries, why can’t low temperatures and high pH linger just as long? It’s not as alarming, that’s why.
To me – the stupid, it burns . . .
Auto, desperately sad that THIS is where we seem to have arrived at . . . . .
Dear Auto,
“OFF TOPIC here” but still relevant to certain questions in this thread.
Paul asked Anthony, “What action can folks take that would yield positive results ?”.
A very good question indeed and that question applies to folks in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, The France, The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium and other countries.
The answer is this:-
It needs SOMEONE very special (and yes, we know who that person is) to produce a Special Feature Film for general public viewing and “viral” transmission in various languages across the world.
This film / movie will cause government collapses quickly: it will (hopefully) create havoc.
Folks: please remember that the shite-hawks in the bunkers (oops … did I just say that ?) in Berlin, Washington, London and The France and Brussels, Belgium are watching here, so be careful.
If you (Paul) can give us all a better idea, I’m sure we would genuinely love to hear of it.
At this stage of the year, what with the up-coming Parasite meeting in November, I think you will find me correct in my “answer” above. I do hope so.
Regards,
WL
Just saw his speech live on CNN (that’s all I get here on Dish in the Baja). Interesting, he went off script for a while and described arriving in LA for College and he went for a run – after a short while he found it hard to breathe. Now he said in LA runners can breathe without smog. Don’t you get it – EPA or whatever (the catalytic converter) has done it’s job and maybe you should leave well enough alone. He also mentioned that acid rain has been cleared up due to EPA I guess… All of this was done with coal fired power plants in operation, but he didn’t mention that. His emphasis was with the skeptic alarmists about the economy and not the CAGW alarmist about carbon (CO2)…I could go into a rant, but I won’t…
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/244497-obama-smoking-president-caught-on-camera-holding-pack-of-cigarettes
running in LA during smog events with the high ozone content always maxe my eye turn red and exercise breathing more labored. but it was the ozone and other bad stuff (nitrites, sulfites) that caused the difficulty, not CO2.
Just like the Gruberism for passing ObamaCare, the US President once again relies on the stupidity of the US voter to not put pressure on Congress to intervene in his regulatory lawlessness.
Models and simulaiting. No more then that all the panic over models and simulations but no real world opservations. And humans still belief this crap???????????????
So, let’s see…..it takes a long time for changes in CO2 levels to show up..
…but yet, they can nail it down to the day (industrialization) when it started
Obviously an increase in CO2 has an immediate effect…
..and a reduction in CO2, not so much
AGW, CO2 and all the other buzzwords, key phrases and public hype are only one thing… political sleight-of-hand to distract the public from the fact that politicians have no idea how to handle the REAL problems of overspending, immigration, unemployment, etc.
Bingo!!
It’s just a substitute problem to gigantic issue of the world depression II.
In the movie “Idiocracy” the protagonist had to stay in suspended animation for 500 years before he emerged into a world dominated by total morons. Although the plot was definitely prophetic, it was decidedly pessimistic in it’s timeline. We appear to be closing on the end state at lightspeed and will likely achieve total “Idiocracy” by the end of the decade and possibly by the next Presidential election.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
― H.L. Mencken
As if GW Bush wasn’t that moron! You people are a hoot. You whine that the left makes the climate a political issue. Then you turn around and make it a political issue yourselves. This site is good only when it sticks to the science of what’s happening. The politics is childish.
We have had a number of morons in the White House but it’s been on a downward trend, and rapidly getting worse.
donj,
Thanks for your input.
Appreciated.
Auto
don jindra
I don’t whine that the left makes the climate a political issue. It is primarily a scientific, economic, and moral issue. If it requires a political solution to roll back regulatory changes, so be it.
So tell us don jindra, what about obama do you like so much?
“So tell us don jindra, what about obama do you like so much?”
I don’t like any politician so much. As I said, I’m not interested in the politics of climate science no matter who is behind it. That includes all political sides. The climate itself will have its say, one way or another. Anyone who is serious about the issue should concentrate on that, imo.
Donji
The issue is political or had you not realised? The science is reasonably clear, its crap.
@ donjindra August 3, 2015 at 2:43 pm
“As if GW Bush wasn’t that moron! You people are a hoot. …”
My dear fellow, I wonder if you realize that H.L. Mencken wrote that quote long before Bush (any of the three) were in public life. Mencken died in ’56. He wrote that quote decades before that even. So, your comment seems a little weird to me.
I don’t have time this morning, but there is a wonderful quote by another An-Cap (like me), who said something along the lines of: “every president of my lifetime made me nostalgic for the one before him!”.
Since you sound like a true believer Democrat, let me tell you that the least bad president was … wait for it … a democrat! Martin Van Buren who served as the eighth President of the United States (1837–1841) and was a member of the Democratic Party was about as good as it ever got. (See Rothbard or Tom Woods for reasons)
“I don’t whine that the left makes the climate a political issue.”
Good, because it was the right (Thatcher and Gore) who dragged it into politics. It is true that the left keeps it there, as well as American Democrats. (Democrats count as right to far right.)
” This site is good only when it sticks to the science of what’s happening. The politics is childish.”
Ageed, donjindra.
RoHa
I was partially quoting donjindra in order to answer him. I’m aware of Thatcher’s role in the agw scam. My point was to challenge the false assumption put forth by donjindra.
As far as American Democrats being right or far right…..you are either massively uninformed or you are from another country and don’t understand the left/right continuum as it is defined in the USA. In the USA, but it appears, not in Europe, the left equals big government and the right equals small government. In between are variations on the theme. Hope this helps.
To Louis Hunt’s point
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level
+10 with Bernie Sanders playing President Camacho
The Model has spoken.
Now all humble themselves and make offerings to the Model.
Those who do not voluntarily make offerings to the Model, will be forced to make them.
The Model has spoken.
Speaking of models, the good news is
Any movie with Ben Stiller is very bad news. Same for Adam Sandler.
If they want a method to capture the CO2, then there is no need to Burn the poplar wood and subsequently try to capture the CO2 released in the process. The CO2 is already locked up in the wood so just leave it as wood and either build with it or chip it and store the chips underground. You could store a lot of poplar wood cords as solids or chips as infill in the bottom of petered out Coal Strip Mines. Who knows, eventually this mountain of Poplar chips covered in tons of earth could become a new Coal Seam or other energy source for future generations
Growing poplar trees will be bad for termites. They just won’t eat that stuff. Their species could be endangered.
Even better for building then
We’ll have to grow millions of other trees to keep them fed in that case. But first we’ll need some grants to study the issue.
Just warm up sea water under controlled conditions and you will get all the CO2 you want.
Just maybe and secretly knowingly that termites produce enormous amounts of the dreaded CO2 ‘they’ are waging a war on the little devils…que the Dr. Evil laugh
https://youtu.be/BdvUR67nZs0
All apologies…
CO2 reductions to solve Climate change? Wrong solution for the world. A Limerick.
Renewable energy: – Clean.
The world is so dirty and mean.
Never mind the expense
and it doesn’t make sense.
CO2 is what makes the world green.
The White House Aug 3 announced a target of 32% reduction in CO2 emission from U.S. power plants by 2030. This is a target that no existing Coal fired power plant can meet, only natural gas fired power plants. He also proposed a 70% reduction in emissions other than CO2, which has its merits.
Obama may yet succeed in his campaign promise: “Under my plan the electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”
more: http://lenbilen.com/2015/08/03/co2-reductions-to-solve-climate-change-wrong-solution-for-the-world-a-limerick/
There have been times in the past when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was much higher than today. And the marine life survived just fine.
I wonder how much longer this assault on prosperity will be tolerated. The proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of what does cause climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Only until the vast majority of people catch on that this indeed is what it’s all about…an assault on our prosperity.
nigel
Agree
Indeed –
Concur totally.
May be using WUWT – whilst speaking to ‘Our’ side consider the transformancy . . . .
AQuto
It’s very interesting that increasing water temperatures decrease the oxygen dissolved in the ocean (2nd last paragraph), but that CO2 and acidification aren’t affected by the warmer temps and keep on getting worse. Compartmentalized thinking?
O2 follows the gas laws; CO2 not.
What?
CO2 is more controlled by acid base equilibrium.
They just said that because of the deep oceans, CO2 lags temperature…
…and they have the computer model to prove it
the little “o” would love to see the US electricity consumer paying German prices at the meter. The more of this massive increase that can go to taxes the better (for him).
Related ignorance at work.
Years ago i was in a nursery on Sydney’s ugliest thoroughfare, Parramatta Road that specialised in water plants and stuff.
Surrounded by vibrant greenery and the joyful sound of running water, it was a marvellous place to potter and have a cuppa with the septuagenarian who created it on the site of a defunct Caltex petrol station.
The peace was disturbed by on officious bloke who announced he was from the Sydney Water, Sewage and Drainage Board and that he was there to investigate what was happening to all the “waste water” this haven must have produced, given the amount of metered HO2 they were consuming.
The lady’s response after she recovered from this pitiful creature’s statement, came short and swift,
“You are breathing it you moron”
NOboma’16
I just saw a on the BBC professor Alexander Golub of the American University, say while it would be difficult to implement a 1% cut overnight, a 30% (or more) cut in 15 years was entirely realistic. He sounded to me to be an academic who was totally out of touch with reality.
http://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/agolub.cfm
One question I would like to see asked of Obama, and all of the so called “experts”, is how much difference will these measures, if fully implemented, make to global temperatures and other so called “climate change” events ?
I don’t think they could answer that.
C’mon 15 years of ‘research and bulldust reports’ on a 6 digit annual stipend? Now there is a goal for this esteemed chap.
I noticed the guy had a Russian accent and I see that he graduated from the Moscow State University in 1982.
I guess there are more opportunities in the field of “climate change” in the U.S.A.
This is laughable for two reasons. First even if global warming were true any action taken by us would not matter and secondly global warming is not what lies ahead but rather global cooling.
At least for the next 30 years or so until it starts warming again.
Well that all depends upon whether the modern warm period is coming to an end, just as the MWP, the Roman Warm Period, The Minoan Warm periods did before.
Presently, we do not know what the near term future holds, and anyone who claims to know is not being scientific, and is a crank.
Not only are these clowns deficient in their knowledge of thermodynamics but it seems of chemistry as well.
Total BS. The fact that there are idiots out there that believe this means there will be lots more candidates for the Darwin awards.
The extra H- ions in ocean water come from the dilution of the oceans, and not from dissolved CO2.
So CO2 will leave a legacy of heat and acidity in the deep ocean. And it is going to stay for a long time. Right. I have no immediate interest in visiting the deep ocean anytime soon. I do wonder how it got there in the first place, however.
Acid ocean. Sea level rise. Moon dissolving. Poplar trees. It doesn’t look good.
Add in pushcart nation as a policy objective too…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-03/california-regulator-mary-nichols-may-transform-the-auto-industry
“Clean Power Plan: Isn’t it an artificial emergency with impossible deadlines created by poorly written regulations for unwilling states?”
So, no possible conflict of interest there, then?
” …asked Caldeira, who worked on this issue during a research stay at PIK…” It comes from Potsdam. It is therefore bullcrap .
“Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification………”
Strange, I’m not a scientist but I thought it was the sun the warmed the oceans. Silly me.
And then there’s that world “unprecedented” again. So an alkaline ocean stunningly becomes not just acidic, but at a never-seen-before rate. So I assume the authors of this piece have ocean pH records going back to their start which enabled them to draw this conclusion. And how do they know what the oceans’ pH level was before that?
I know things are supposed to get worse before they get better, but I’m wondering if this will ever be the case with this CAGW cattle dung. These people are an absolute riot if they think they can make the world a better this way……
” never-seen-before rate” well…. I’ve never ever seen it before!! so there….
Repent! the end is near. The universe is rapidly filling up with never-seen-before planets.
“In the deep ocean, the chemical echo of this century’s CO2 pollution will reverberate for thousands of years,” said co-author John Schellnhuber …
poetry right, that’s enough
“…removing active carbon dioxide…” If there is active carbon dioxide is there inactive? How do we tell the difference?
Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1902 as an organization for scientific discovery. Did anyone hear him rolling over in his grave?
He’s spinning like a sideways Top!!!
Seriously, with quotes like this:
“These changes would linger even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future,”
the Carnegie relationship is quite fitting, as these (pick an appropriate insulting description) want to take us back to the time when Carnegie was growing up!
Better start saving up horseshoes, unless you want to ride on your goat!!!
I tried riding my great uncles horse when I was a kid, it wasn’t a pleasant experience. My dad said that when the environmentalist get cold and hungry, you won’t be able to find one. I hope we can stop them before it gets to that.
692, number 692 is next to be granted a quid pro quo. So you’re the Pope? Well Number 692, what have you done for climate change overreach lately to deserve your hearing with his holiness Climate Pope the First?
Curiously should the earth begin cooling as a result of Solar influence all the AGW crowd will take credit for the cooling on the basis that those measures implemented by these lunatics are what made the difference. In fact, I’ll wager that Obama ( his science advisors) took note of the 15 year timescale for cooling recently in the press and figured “what the heck if we get cooling no matter what the cause we can take our bows for ‘following the science’ in Carbon Policy and ‘healing the earth’. If temps increase then, by golly, we just haven’t done enough yet. It’s a win/win for irrationality and a body blow to science. Not unprecedented though; Ehrlich’s predictions would have come true save for the “Green Revolution” according to the current pack of lies masquerading as green academia.
But, but… nobody is working on the geoengineering to keep us from sliding into a glacial period. It doesn’t take a climate scientist to figure out that a colder, drier Earth with agriculturally productive areas covered by ice are problematic compared to a warmer, wetter world.
Oh wait. ‘ Dangerous Climate Change’ means the oceans will boil, we’re all gonna fry and WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! For a minute there I forgot ‘climate change’ has a new, very specific meaning unrelated to any reality the Earth has ever experienced. For most of Earth’s history, the climate has been palm trees and Mai Tais with the occasional snowball Earth and asteroid-induced mass extinction thrown in for a little variety. It’s different now, right? Climate Change = Boiling Oceans (and it’s all our fault).
The odd thing is in the 70s the coming iceage was our fault too.
Bit puzzled by the concern over ocean acidification arising from the change in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and its predicted effect on shelled marine life.
The plot from geocraft , seen many times here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
shows a 3000 – 7000ppm concentration of CO2 in the Cambrian, a period in which shelled gastropods had already evolved : eg
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236217225_The_Cambrian_basement_of_gastropod_evolution
Admittedly temperatures were higher than current and there is considerable uncertainty about the level of CO2 500 M years ago but I can’t help wondering if the current concerns over the effect of small changes in pH on marine life have not been somewhat exaggerated.
The co-author himself …
He needs education in presentation skills. I couldn’t stand it long enough to hear him out.
Hard to believe that everything in this presentation is an exaggerated false truth taken to the extreme. All of it. It starts with mean global temperature in the last ice age at -20C and it doesn’t stop from there.
Even when they cut to the audience, you can tell the pro-warmers in the audience are uncomfortably shifting in their chairs saying to those near them and to themselves “I can’t believe he just said that. We are taking this global warming bandwagon too far now.”
This guy is just not someone who should be in charge of a well-funded organization. He doesn’t care about the truth.
Schellnhuber and PIK are the primary alarmist and institute that consulted Angela Merkel into the “Energiewende” which skyrocketed the German electricity price to the second highest in Europe (after wind champion Denmark). He was also the “specialist” advising the Pope…
at 3:50, describing how the industrial revolution is not over yet:
“… on the right hand side you see a destroyed, a collapsed building in Bangladesh, where more than a thousand people lost their lives, eh. So the ugly face of the industrial revolution is all over the planet now.”
Another wasted effort. They ran the ipcc “business as usual” case, which is impossible to achieve simply because we don’t have the ability to extract such huge fossil fuel volumes.
Their model probably assumes we will be importing methane from Jupiter.
So gravity is also going to get worse.
Typical…. you dont need to know, you just need to know WE know. From the EPA proposed rule :EPA cannot exactly
predict how emissions from specific
EGUs would change as an outcome of
the proposed rule due to the state-led
implementation. Therefore, the EPA has
concluded that it is not practicable to
determine whether there would be
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low income, or indigenous
populations from this proposed rule.
Here in England it’s 10.27pm and it is 55F degrees outside temperature and falling fast.
Three nights ago there was a slight FROST down the valley and it is the middle of our British summertime. In Australia too, the place of Albert Gore’s recent visit, it was cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
“The climate is what we expect: the weather is what we get” … and yes, I do know who wrote that a very long time ago. My points are:-
1. The likes of “team Caldeira” are ONLY interested in Gravy Train Money (tax-payers’ monies) so; until the whole system is shut down, these blood sucking hypocrite “teams” and their so-called universities and the “subsidy farming” vandals will continue to spout their self-perpetuating drivel as long as “governments” are daft enough to pay it.
2. It is perverse that “team Caldeira” have their drivel in a paper named “NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE”: such a title states the bleedin’ obvious !
3. I stopped reading at para. 4 which starts with … “Using climate modelling…”.
4. At least we get to know quite a bit about who these morons actually are and how they operate and what they spew out but of course, we ONLY get to know it because of WUWT and for that I am very grateful to Anthony and all his people. Thank you again.
5. The large “CO2” colour/color PHOTO is of course ABSURD: no-one can actually, ever see such a thing.
Ah well; getting chilly now, so time for more wood and coal on the fire. Now where did I put that glass of Scotch ? … wait a minute: the entire “glass” is made of …
Snow on the ground at sea level in Tasmania. First time since 1986.
And some Tasmanians are just crazy !
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2015/08/03/1227468/174264-d390e37c-3984-11e5-ac4d-1a42e7315cf6.jpg
Tasmania is the only Australian state outside the subtropical boundary. All the rest of Australia is either subtropical or tropical.
Its certainly interesting to see just how little land is outside the subtropics in the SH compared to the NH.
seems you need to right click open in new tab to see pic..
It might look cold but the water is pretty much the same temp as always.
Some hype in there, “British summertime” only occurs in models, not in real life!
The ocean is not acidic. CO2 forms the basis of carbonates for shells and corals. It’s time that these liars were held accountable. The same goes for the imaginary greenhouse effect.
This article is industrial grade stupidity. I cannot believe that anyone, no matter how stupid, would still believe in this subsidized garbage. The geoengineering ideas being floated are the most dangerous garbage of all.
I have an Idea!!! What if we build HUGE deep sea pumps, bring the hot, acidic, CO2 laden water from the deep, back to the surface, then we strip all of the CO2 out of it, re balance the calcium and cool the water out, then we can re-pump it in the abyss of the ocean. It must be feasible! We will probably need a purpose built natural-gas solar powered electricity station to run the pumps and the filters and we end up SAVING THE WORLD!!! Grants, money, donations to: Bahama Bank…….
Anyone that thinks that the small increase in atmospheric CO2 is in any way going to change the CO2 content of the deep ocean waters is a total loonie !!
And the Royal Society and NAS report goes even further. Point 20 states that humans could stop all co2 emissions today and we wouldn’t see any changes in co2 levels or temps “for thousands of years.”
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-20/
And at last count the authors of this report included 5 lead authors and 2 authors from the IPCC reports. You’ll recognise some of the names here.
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/contributors/
Of course there will be no change in temps since the temperature really is not to sensitive to CO 2 level as proven by 18 years of no warming despite ever increasing CO 2. the correlation must be weak based on the data.
The tragedy is that this pile of puffed-up bovine scat is called “science” and will be treated as such.
Maybe if more money was thrown at the climate scientists, they could come up with a scenario more hopeful than so hopeless? How about the greening of the allegedly warming sub-polar regions of Canada because of all that extra CO2 wherein barley and winter wheat could be grown to feed more people?
All your comments are trenchant and make good sense. However the warmists do not want to hear from you and they will just censor or ignore your arguments. You are preaching to the converted. The whole scenario is utterly sad and rather futile.
That’s the gist of it, yes.
Obama has only one thing in mind: greenicide. This is defined as the destruction of western societies by the global warming extremists.
I’m serious. Start measuring these charlatans for their prison garb. They have defalcated the American public for billions and helped promulgate billions more in regulatory damage and mischief. Their criminality deserves to be made an example for all in the future.
Run with models with and without the estimate cut backs. What is the difference in the results of the model runs? Virtually zip. Zilch. Nothing.
“defalcated ” is that a misspelling for an unsanitary act?
Until we have mapped and accounted for the “legacy of heat and acidity in the deep ocean” produced by every deep ocean volcano, this is purely blind speculation.
From any “long-term” geological aspect, the earth is currently in an Ice Age. Why, there are even rumors of glaciation at the poles:-) Who ever his “handlers” are as per a “Legacy”… they are assuming that science knows far more, than we actually do.
Arrogant people! Far too self-important.
A warmist is suspended over a huge vat of caustic soda. I am in another room, I don’t know what is going on next door, except that something is required of me to prevent disaster. I see controls for adding chemicals to a large vat somewhere. The warmist notices an intercom that he can use to talk to me.
Does he say “Quick! Neutralise the water in the vat!”
Or does he say:
“Quick! Acidify the water in the vat!”
According to him, they are both equivalent, right? So why do we suspect he wouldn’t go near the “acidify” version when his own welfare depends on it.
I don’t read anything produced or co produced by PIK and it’s Activist Scientists, especially if they go by the name of Schnellnhuber. All Gore Vomit
R. de Haan
A maxim I too will follow having endured about five minutes of model-based carp – before stopping to drone.
Auto
Caldeira is lucky that CO2 causes him to breathe out on account of because i don’t think he has the brain power to do it on his own if it required conscious thought.
“the chemical echo of this century’s CO2 pollution ”
As soon as anyone starts calling CO2 at any possible atmospheric level “pollution”
You KNOW that they are a rabid, anti-science NUTTER. !!
never mind the RHETORIC, here’s reality:
3 Aug: Financial Times Blog: Nick Butler: The reports are false – coal burns on
The coal industry is growing. Demand was up last year despite the slowdown in China, and globally almost 30 per cent higher than a decade ago. Coal will soon (perhaps as soon as next year) overtake oil as the world’s most substantial single source of energy, regaining some of the market share it has lost to oil and gas over the last half century.
The first era of coal began with the industrial revolution and extended through the 19th century, thanks to the development of railways and shipping across the world. The second era has its origins in the economic transformation of China which began in the last two decades of the last century, followed now by that of India. The next 50 years are likely to see more coal burnt than in the whole of the 20th century…READ ALL
http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/08/03/coal-burns-on/
“One idea is that fast-growing trees such as poplars, which consume a great deal of carbon dioxide during growth, could be farmed and then burned in bioenergy plants where their carbon dioxide would captured and stored underground instead of released back into the atmosphere”
Why not jus bury the bloody trees!!!
This so typical of the half baked qualitative ideas of fancy that pass as analysis these days. This just tells me that the whole thing is being driven by graduates of humanities and soft ‘sciences’ rather than anyone with a grounding in quantitative science or even basic logic.
This latest paper puts the lie to Obama’s agenda on CO2 emissions: http://pindanpost.com/2015/08/03/significant-releases-of-co2-has-no-essential-effect-on-the-earths-climate/
ABSTRACT
In the Earth atmosphere, methane gradually converts into carbon dioxide which, according to the conventional anthropogenic theory of global warming, is the main driver of global climate change. The authors investigated the greenhouse effect of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere using their tested adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of troposphere to the atmospheric pressure and solar activity. This model allows one to analyze the global temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. Even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and have no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Thus, petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities resulting in accumulation of additional amounts of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.
Alke seltzer …lots of it, problem fixed.
can I take that in cash?
I don’t want to break up the party but when you folks have got a minute take a look at the Antarctic sea ice page in WUWT ref section .
Since mid July it has lost about 1million sqkm of ice apparently compared to this time last year – and it is mid winter down there. Could it be that Obama is right in his precautionary legislation?
Are you having a laugh or is this a serious comment ?
This year’s 2 ppm increase in CO2 has caused this horrendous effect on the daily lives of all humanity ??
Did you also happen to notice where Antarctic sea ice levels were in 1980 ??
Unexpected events are usually worth investigating , even if the suspicion is that they are just due to instrument or experimental error. I assume , given the quality of the technical staff , the latter is not the case , so something is happening .
Reference to the seaice imagery shows that the ice extent is close to or exceeds the line that I take to be the long term median or mean extent , except in the region between longitude 45Eand70E , ie not the West Antarctic ice that is said to be vulnerable. So is this the area that lost 1M sqkm so rapidly ? If so why?
mikewaite,
Are you expecting more Antarctic sea ice as a consequence of “global warming”, or less?
==============================
April 6, 2009:
“UP TO one-third of all Antarctic sea ice is likely to melt by the end of the century, seriously contributing to dangerous sea level rises, updated scientific modelling on global warming shows.”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-expected-20090405-9t9v.html
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
April 23, 2009
“It seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic. Scientists in the United Kingdom have produced a study which shows ice has grown by 100,000 square kilometres each decade in the past 30 years. And perversely the increase is being put down to the hole in the ozone layer.”
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2550320.htm
==============================
More or less? Which will it be?
The same question applies to your expectation of snow cover in the northern hemisphere: do you expect global warming to bring more snow, or less?
==============================
Telegraph UK, May 21, 2008
Climate change threat to alpine ski resorts
By Graham Tibbetts
[…]
In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records.
“I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Telegraph UK, Dec 29, 2008 (6 months later)
The Alps have best snow conditions ‘in a generation’
By Peter Hardy
Heavy storms this week mean that skiers will enjoy records amounts of snow in Alpine resorts this Christmas.
==============================
Lake ice – more or less?
==============================
National Science Foundation
January 10, 2008
Winter Ice on Lakes, Rivers, Ponds: A Thing of the Past?
Records over 150 years show trend toward fewer days of ice cover
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Historical Great Lakes Ice Cover
March 02, 2014
During the winter of 2013/14, very cold temperatures covered the Great Lakes and surrounding states. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana each had winter temperatures that ranked among the ten coldest on record. The persistent cold caused 91 percent of the Great Lakes to be frozen by early March. This was the second largest ice coverage for the lakes, with data dating to 1973, and the largest on record for the date.
==============================
Winters – colder or milder?
==============================
Independant UK,
March 20, 2000
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Charles Onians
[…]
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Telegraph UK,
Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research
Dec 04, 2014
Climate sceptics often claim that recent icy winters show that global warming is not happening. New research suggests the opposite is true.
==============================
Drought or flood?
Why is always head I win, tails you lose?
Why do the heads of Institutes and the Editors of newspapers not recognise the often contradictory nature of the statements that emanate from their establishments .
They must know that this is happening , but it seems that the political agenda is the dominant influence.
Carbon pollution is bad, but it leads to water pollution which is much worse. (See how ridiculous it sounds.)
,,, and acid rain.
Industrialist Andrew Carnegie is probably gaining angular velocity in his grave at the garbage the Institute bearing his name is producing today.
Perhaps the Institution should be reminded of its roots?
This is insane!!! There are so many levels in which the above assumptions are wrong. First of all, if piddley small amounts of anthropogenic CO2 sourced heat can hide in the deep oceans, so can solar insolation uptickes due to extended clear sky conditions, and all the more so, to return and provide providential warmth. Second, the Earth has been greening, in part due to warmth and in part due to additional CO2, in an amount still not optimal for productive flora and fauna to thrive. Third, this being the most important one, whenever some gooberment concrete footer tries to “return the lands to nature”, they screw it up. Biologic controls, done by government muddle heads, nearly always becomes the next problem, and usually left for us to solve after the muddle heads clear out. Finally, it is very likely that periods of drought and periods of rain, along with periods of stable climate and periods of extremes, are part of the natural course. If we let these gooberment outsiders tinker with the land that rightly belongs to the common people within each state to make productive or not, not to Obama and his ilk as frozen monuments, we certainly will deserve the destruction that will come.
Is it true Isotope-ratio mass spectrometry can tell the difference between naturally produced CO2 and man produced CO2? The claim is most, or all if you believe the alarmists, of the CO2 in today’s atmosphere is of the fossil fuel produced variety (which includes a small percentage from deforestation). I have found few papers on the subject but nothing definitive. Not trying to hijack this thread but appealing to this forum’s expertise. Thanks
See if this helps with your question. Remember, a reader’s goal when digesting a research article is to find the holes in assumptions, methods, results, and conclusions. Further, it the taint of bias rises like a smelly 3 day old fish, research it’aint.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1473/2011/acp-11-1473-2011.pdf
damn. typo. “Further, IF the taint…”
Thank you for the link. The research didn’t answer the question but they sure opened the doors for more grant money 🙂 I’m skeptical that the claim is true and I’m guessing it’s more of another theory, to bolster their theory. You’d think if it were true it would be widely publicized.
Heard a bit of NPR’s Diane Rehm show this morning about the new US power regulations (listen here if you dare: https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-08-04/president-obama-announces-new-limits-on-power-plant-carbon-emissions )
One of the guests was Rhea Suh, who is President of the National Resources Defense Council, a $120 million/year organization that lobbies on environmentalist causes. She came through the revolving door from a post in the Obama administration’s Interior Department. She read her talking points very well, but her absurdly emotive language used to describe weather along with her completely innumerate descriptions of power generation had me screaming at the radio. NRDC pays this propagandist $400,000 per annum, and benefits from tax payers through their frequent use of “sue and settle” cases against federal agencies. These are heavily incestuous government/foundation/news relationships, abetted by large donations from unnamed individuals as well.
Where is her conflict of interest statement?
“One idea is that fast-growing trees such as poplars, which consume a great deal of carbon dioxide during growth, could be farmed and then burned in bioenergy plants where their carbon dioxide would captured and stored underground instead of released back into the atmosphere.”
I find this interesting. Would this even lower global co2 levels? We have seen atmospheric co2 raise at consistent rates while emissions rose fast. My running theory is that plants use up every bit we release and co2 levels themselves might be in relation to an entirely different variable like overall temp. Cant prove that is true, but it fits the data much more cleanly then the idea co2 rose at consistent rates while emissions skyrocketed.
This reminds me I once read a published paper trying to explain why co2 levels never had a relationship to temp until pangea broke up and co2 levels were considerably lower. Forget all the details but that paper must be floating around somewhere for someone who might want to look it up.
Only in Switzerland, apparently becoming the last bastion of democratic governance and having a free press, can we find the real reasons for the manmade global warming fraud. To leave no doubt, in an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, is quoted saying::
“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”
If further proof were needed after this IPCC official statement, I suggest a read of Joseph A Klein’s book “Global Deception”.
Can someone please help me out with carbonic acid? One seemingly objective site I read indicated a lifespan of that compound having a life measured in nano-seconds before the elements took a different form. Is this correct?
Here is what Australia’s famous ‘global warming alarmist’ actually said on radio back in 2011:
“If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet’s not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/year-vision-fuels-climate-fight/story-fn59niix-1226029695904
Yep… this actually came from Tim Flannery, the Aussie master climate change alarmist extraordinaire who has yet to make a correct climate prediction and who was effectively dumped by Australia’s Prime Minister as Chairman of Australia’s useless Climate Commission.
Agree. They forget that plants also provide oxygen to our lower atmosphere, and nitrogen is the main component of our breathable air. Water vapor is also considered the largest component in greenhouse gases. But the colder we get less rain.