|
In addition, it's yet one more thing to ratchet up the floor temperature for the year 2100.As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Actually, I don't think EITHER of you know what you're talking about.
A new mechanism has been found and needs to be incorporated into the models.
Until it IS incorporated AND the new models run I don't think we know what effect it will have on atmospheric temperatures.
Intuition (especially the intuition of non experts) is worth pretty much nothing when it comes to something as complex as climate change
|
Actually, I don't think EITHER of you know what you're talking about.
A new mechanism has been found and needs to be incorporated into the models.
Until it IS incorporated AND the new models run I don't think we know what effect it will have on atmospheric temperatures.
Intuition (especially the intuition of non experts) is worth pretty much nothing when it comes to something as complex as climate change
Sorry, but you (and QB) are simply wrong. There is no intuition involved. It is simply obvious that if more of the heat from global warming is absorbed by the oceans that means less of it stays in the atmosphere.
Other results of that shift may be complex (i.e. faster sea level rise, shifting planetary albedo, amplified water cycle, etc) but none of those effects change the basic truth of the law of conservation of energy... if there is slightly more heat going into the oceans than previously estimated then there is less heat staying in the atmosphere. It is really just that simple.
|
|
Sorry, but you (and QB) are simply wrong. There is no intuition involved. It is simply obvious that if more of the heat from global warming is absorbed by the oceans that means less of it stays in the atmosphere.
It is SO obvious that you and Quark have diametrically opposed opinions of what will "OBVIOUSLY" happen. And neither of you have a shred of evidence to back up your opinion
I stick by my assertion. Your intuition (both of you) has essentially zero value and I'll wait until the experts who actually know something decide what WILL happen.
|
|
Your assertion? Indeed! I'll agree that is the way you've presented your position.
Absolutely. I'm not claiming otherwise. You are both jumping to a conclusion unwarranted by the paper cited.
As for my 'shreds of evidence':
I've cited scores, if not hundreds, of peer reviewed papers up thread. Sorry you missed that part of my argument. Please join us again when you take the time to actually read the fullness of my well argued and presented opinions.
You do realize that I'm ONLY talking about your conclusion on what this new evidence about water mixing means, right? Your peer reviewed papers upthread hardly address that.
Naw, he's cited hundreds of papers, therefore, everything he says is correct. Also, he got an A on a paper once, therefore, everything he says is always correct.
|
|
It's not actually clear to me why this new finding means the oceans get warmer. The article QB linked says so, but what it actually described is more mixing between cold and warm waters than was previously thought. That doesn't directly change how much heat is absorbed.
More mixing absolutely does change how much heat is absorbed.
Suppose we had a situation where there were no ocean currents at all. All the water just sat there motionless. In this case the uppermost ocean waters would absorb heat from the Sun, but lower ocean waters would only warm due to conduction. The warmer the surface water is the more heat it conducts to the air above... until they reach an equilibrium point where the amount of heat entering and exiting the water through the atmosphere is the same. At that point the surface waters have gotten as warm as they can and therefore the amount of heat spreading to lower waters is capped.
Now suppose we add a single ocean current that pushes warm water near the equator North and cold water near the pole South. Now we've got heat transfer from both conduction AND convection. Some of the southern water that would have been heat saturated is now replaced by colder water from the north that can absorb more heat. The total amount of heat absorbed by the oceans has increased because we have physically moved cold water to warmer regions... mixing them.
It is the same as my previous (seemingly uncontroversial) statement about more heat in the oceans perforce meaning less in the atmosphere... more heat mixed in to the deep ocean (the new finding in question) means less heat remaining in the upper ocean... means more heat can be absorbed from the atmosphere... means less heat remaining in the atmosphere.
All of this has been 'settled science' for a few hundred years now. Basic thermodynamics. Which is presumably why the article simply states it as a given.
|
|
Were we basing estimates of how much heat the oceans have absorbed only on surface measurements and thus underestimating the amount of warming the oceans have already undergone - because the supposed colder layers aren't actually as cold as we thought they were? Or were we measuring all of this already and this is just affecting projections going forward?
There are both direct measurements and models of total ocean heat content. This finding will help to whittle away at the differences between the two and the corresponding uncertainty ranges.
In the short run, nothing should change I think. We've known the surface temperatures, which are what controls heat absorption. This would be changing our estimates of what surface temperatures will be in the future.
Yep. Though again, we're talking about a change so small that it disappears in the rounding... so nothing much will change in the long term either.
QB,
What?? You've never seen Goodfellas??!!
Sheesh....
I'd understand if you've not seen a Marvel Movie...(you seem to be more of a DC guy anyway...) But no Goodfellas??? I mean that movies on like daily here!
|
|
It's quite likely that this new factor raises the floor for the average global temperature due to anthropic activities.
Seriously? You still don't get it?
You said yourself that heat flows from warmer to colder. Correct. So which is colder... air temperature at the Earth's surface or water temperature at the bottom of the ocean?
Yes, there is a buffer of ocean water between those two things which prevents immediate transfer, but the whole point here is that greater mixing of that ocean water has been found... thereby reducing the efficiency of that buffer and allowing more surface heat to be transferred to cold deep ocean waters.
This is basic 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Fun fact: If ocean waters mixed rapidly enough to evenly distribute heat throughout them we wouldn't even have noticed global warming yet (See footnote 2). The atmospheric temperature increase would be too small to detect. It is only because surface and deep ocean waters mix slowly that the atmosphere has been forced to warm so significantly.
Indeed, one of the early arguments against global warming was that the oceans would absorb all the heat... because they didn't account for slow mixing and surface water temperature saturation.
|
|
So does that suggest that the oceans have already absorbed more heat than we thought, since they mix more than we thought they did? We measure mostly the surface temperatures, but the deep cold water has warmed more than we thought it had?
Yes... and no.
We estimate total ocean heat content in multiple ways and this finding is within the margin of error of those existing estimates.
So, our modeled estimates of heat uptake haven't been taking this effect in to account and thus indeed have been underestimating ocean heating.
Estimates based on ocean temperature measurements have been finding greater deep ocean warming than expected for a while now, and thus likely already include some portion of the warming from this mechanism.
Estimates based on sea level rise subtract out the contribution from melting ice to find how much of the rise is due to thermal expansion... and thus how much the oceans have warmed. Thus, again while they wouldn't have included this (or any other) mechanism of heat distribution they WOULD include the impact.
For several years there was a discrepancy between the heat we knew must be accumulating in the climate system (based on measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation... incoming - outgoing = amount staying in the system) and how much heat we could actually FIND. In recent years more and more of that "missing heat" has been located in the deep oceans as we began being able to measure that area. Thus, we had already determined that the heat was down there... what this new study has done is provided an explanation for how some (possibly most?) of that heat is getting there.
That will eventually allow us to model the new mechanism and thus predict future warming and other impacts with smaller uncertainty ranges. It also confirms what direct ocean temperature measurements and sea level rise estimates had already been telling us. As the three methods come in to closer agreement we gain more confidence that any remaining unknowns represent smaller and smaller factors.
|
|
given the current state of knowledge it seems unlikely that it will do much of anything before the year 2100
Well, at least you've conceded that this new finding will have little impact.
However, your 'it is all just so complex and chaotic that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply and we cannot possibly know what will happen... and therefore this will very likely result in more atmospheric warming' argument remains less than coherent.
In other news, Los Angeles has approved the largest solar and electrical storage plant in the world... at half the cost of natural gas.
As predicted, solar with storage to smooth out variability is starting to undercut the cost of natural gas. As prices continue to drop, this will spread from sunny areas like LA to the rest of the world... just as solar went from undercutting coal in a few desert locales about ten years ago to nearly everywhere today.
Meanwhile, the same declines in battery costs that are making large scale electricity storage economically viable are also bringing electric vehicles to price parity with internal combustion. Soon EVs will be better vehicles with lower operating and purchase costs.
QB,
You do realize that we all agree that global temperature and sea level are rising... and these are both issues that are dangerous to humanity. Excluding the random climate denier that comes into the thread 2-3 times a year... we all agree that these are problems.
Do you understand this?
Do you understand that you are not informing us of the existence of this problem?
So the answer to my question is "no."
You think you are informing us of a problem that we are unaware of. Because if we were aware of it, you wouldn't be documenting the "inevitable realization."
|
|
CB I swear reads for incomprehension and the other(s)... well just plain old ###hattery AFAICT.
Actually, from my point of view, it is almost never clear what the three of you (Quark Blast, Irontruth, CBDunkerson) are actually arguing about. You almost completely just reflexively hurl insults at each other.
All 3 of you are so invested in the other person being wrong that you're way, way, way past actually having a discussion.
Now you can all unite for a couple of posts telling me how silly I am :-). Of course, you'll then rapidly go back to just hurling insults at each other :-) :-)
For the record, I think QB is essentially right. We are very, very, very unlikely to manage to keep warming below +2C by 2100. There is a very real possibility that our civilization has basically already decided to end itself.
|
|
The targets set in the 2016 Paris Agreement are supposed to be reviewed and updated every five years. So... in two years we'll see whether most countries stick with what they have, scale back, or commit to greater carbon reductions.
Given the technology and industry trends over the past three years I'd think the result was already a foregone conclusion. For example;
Indiana chooses renewables over natural gas. Shutting down coal plants early to save $4 billion.
When coal states abandon coal, what is there really left to debate?
|
|
The targets set in the 2016 Paris Agreement are supposed to be reviewed and updated every five years. So... in two years we'll see whether most countries stick with what they have, scale back, or commit to greater carbon reductions.
Given the technology and industry trends over the past three years I'd think the result was already a foregone conclusion. For example;
Indiana chooses renewables over natural gas. Shutting down coal plants early to save $4 billion.
When coal states abandon coal, what is there really left to debate?
Others don't seem to agree. Every summary I've seen (a few links below) say we're NOT on track. Perhaps you'd point us at a summary somewhere saying that we're on track globally?
NYT - We're still not meetinghouse gisls
world not on track to meet Paris objectives
climate action tracker
coal consumption worldwide increasing
As an aside, that article is talking about phasing out coal in 10 years so likely next to no impact in the next two years.
For the record, I think QB is essentially right. We are very, very, very unlikely to manage to keep warming below +2C by 2100. There is a very real possibility that our civilization has basically already decided to end itself.
I think anyone making predictions about human history 4 years into the future is full of s!@+, let alone 80 years into the future.
There is a chance they are right, but it would purely be by chance. QB's explanation for why he "knows" what will happen demonstrates to me that he doesn't understand the past or present in regards to politics and culture. If someone doesn't understand the past or present, then I fail to see how their predictions for the future should be considered reliable.
A favorite example of mine, back in 1987 a market analyst correctly predicted the Black Monday crash. When someone asked him how he knew it was going to happen, he said, "I've been predicting it every week for the last 10 years."
When it comes to his analysis of politics, he doesn't look at the evidence and see where it takes him. Instead, QB knows what the result is going to be, and looks for evidence to back him up. Anyone who starts at the conclusion will always find ways to justify their conclusion. It is a bad way to identify the truth though.
|
|
For the record, I think QB is essentially right. We are very, very, very unlikely to manage to keep warming below +2C by 2100. There is a very real possibility that our civilization has basically already decided to end itself.I think anyone making predictions about human history 4 years into the future is full of s*+$, let alone 80 years into the future.
That is a moderately defensible position, albeit one that I don't agree with (I certainly disagree on the 4 year time span. It's obviously more defensible the longer the period in question).
But it rather invalidates the rest of your argument, doesn't it? If your position is that the future is inherently unpredictable then what does it matter how qualified QB is and what methods he uses? None of it matters. And why discuss the future since it is inherently unknowable?
You changed the verb. Changing the verb radically alters the meaning of an idea.
I said predicting the future is b#~~$$@+. I didn't say I'm unwilling to discuss it.
Since it's relevant, think of it like weather prediction. We are very very accurate 3 days out. Very accurate 5-7 days out, and it quickly drops off from there. A 10 day forecast is fairly good, but 20 days is close to a shot in the dark.
When we go way out... like predicting next year, we can only go with general trends. In North America, June tends to be warmer than May. That won't be true if we compare each day of both months against each other, but it will right more often than it's wrong given sufficient data. With all of the climate data, we can make probability statements about trends, and that is it.
The further out we go, the less conclusive we can be about our statements. Especially when we get to anything involving large groups of humans. We know the 2020 election will be contentious, but I think if anyone says they know who will win, they have as much chance of being right as if we let a monkey throw a dart at all the candidates pictures. So much is going to change in just 16 months, that it isn't an answerable question right now. Of course, the closer we get to it, the better our predictions will be (even if just a winnowing of options).
Now, I don't want to debate politics (unless we are conspiring to shut this thread down permanently). But, which party controls the white house, senate, and house of reps, will be a major determining factor in the consequences of climate change. A dedicated president could do a lot to institute change that could prevent global warming. Even if they don't solve it in 4-8 years, we could be on a path towards a solution. On the other hand, if DJT wins, we will make zero progress towards any solution (from the federal government side of things), and likely as not the problem will potentially be worse.
Since we can't predict the outcome of the 2020 election (16 months away), I don't see how we can make a prediction about what efforts will actually be in place to mitigate climate change in 2023 (4 years from now).
edit: all that said, it's still useful to talk about what efforts will be necessary and/or possible.
|
|
Others don't seem to agree. Every summary I've seen (a few links below) say we're NOT on track. Perhaps you'd point us at a summary somewhere saying that we're on track globally?
As I said absolutely nothing about being 'on/off track' I can only imagine that these 'others' are making some sort of faulty assumptions.
The fact that the original Paris Agreement targets were insufficient to prevent 2 C warming is not news. Everyone knew that at the time they were enacted. Nor is the fact that many countries are falling short of their stated goals a surprise. The question is whether that remains the case or if things improve over time. I'm arguing that things clearly seem to be improving over time.
But, which party controls the white house, senate, and house of reps, will be a major determining factor in the consequences of climate change.
I actually don't think it will make much difference. For example, the current US administration has gone all in on propping up the coal industry... which is in full on collapse anyway. There is really nothing they can do to change the underlying trends.
Sure, government policy could be deployed to accelerate the end of fossil fuels rather than prolonging their use, but some countries actually have policies like that and are not too much further along than the countries that do not. Economic forces will be the end of global warming. Further government intervention now can likely only shift the equilibrium point a few years. Government could have been a much more decisive factor decades ago, but that ship has obviously sailed.
|
|
CEO of BMW ousted for falling behind in the transition to electric vehicles
None of the major automakers are even working on 'next generation' internal combustion vehicles any more. They'll roll out the designs they already had in the pipeline and that's it... everything going forward is hybrid, electric, or exploratory stuff like hydrogen fuel cells. Even the hybrids are now fading fast as range and charging times for pure electrics keep improving by leaps and bounds.
|
|
We should've been off of coal and on our way off of gas/diesel circa 1999. How fast we get off those now matters very little in regards to the final average global temperature in the year 2100.
If we get off coal and gas/diesel by 2030 we could potentially hold warming to +1.5C over baseline. If coal and gas/diesel were still the primary fuels for the electricity and transportation sectors thru 2100 then we could be looking at as much as 6C warming.
Granted, neither of those scenarios is very likely... but even if we limit the evaluation to the plausible range (roughly +2C to +3.5C), 'how fast we get off those fuels' matters a lot.
Can I just punch reality like Superboy Prime? Or you think that only works for him, QB?
I have insurance for my business... Not sure about the other one...
I'm not a fan of biodiesel. It's not a solution.
That said the article is leaving some numbers out to fully understand the situation.
How much cooking oil does China use?
Best as I can tell, China is importing 7,570,000,000 liters of palm oil. (note, that this doesn't even represent all of China's used cooking oil)
The UK is then importing 117,000,000 liters of UCO.
The UK is importing 1.5% of the oil that China imported first. Are we really attributing ALL of the deforestation for palm oil to biofuels in the UK? That seems a little bit ridiculous.
How much palm oil China imports.
Palm oil's density at 30C is 885 kg/m3, if you want to do the math yourself to convert metric tons to liters.
I don't deny that the EU demand for biofuels is increasing the demand for palm oil, but it would appear to me based on the actual numbers to be a drop in the bucket of palm oil production. If the EU banned importing palm oil for biofuels (used or new) right now, the overall drop in demand for palm oil would pretty minimal.
For comparison, the UK's yearly consumption of Chinese palm oil is equal to 5.4 days of China's consumption of palm oil.