Summer Arctic Ice

[fbrissette]

taken into the context that co2 is not the driver nor the dominate cause for AGW. Observations is proof this now.

Only in your world where the rules of science don't apply.

 

[jack97]

Only in your world where the rules of science don't apply.

Following profs believes the observation do not support AGW nor does co2 drive the warming

Lizden, emeritous prof, MIT
Curry, Dep chair, Georgia Tech
Christy, director climate research, UAH

all three were active in the IPPC, two of them were lead authors but all got out when it was about politics and not about science. I can name more and I can go on about cook's 97% propaganda as well. but that would mean we would be using up more carbon to banter around this topic.

 

[jack97]

I am officially impressed ! It takes special skill to get so many things wrong in so little space.

haha... go read the modeler's transcript from the APS when they did a Q&A about the current state of the art with GCMs. that's assuming you willing to read other works and go beyond your sacred IPCC bible.

 

[fbrissette]

haha... go read the modeler's transcript from the APS when they did a Q&A about the current state of the art with GCMs. that's assuming you willing to read other works and go beyond your sacred IPCC bible.

IPCC bible.... Those are your words. Believe it or not, I have not read the fifth report, and I have barely touched the fourth. I read journal papers. If you keep track of the scientific literature, there is no need to read the IPCC reports. It is a very detailed literature review of the most important papers in the field and as such it is outstanding for people not well versed in the field. Perfect for 4th year undergraduate students and graduate students. IPCC reports were never meant for scientists to begin with. No scientist thinks it is a bible. The bible lovers are mostly on your team.

Modeler's transcript from the APS... GO READ THE SCIENCE !!! IN THE JOURNAL PAPERS !!! - here's a few regarding your el-nino statement. If you stick with the internet, you're left with false/fake/miselading stuff, or you're behind by quite a few years. Still not perfect, but worlds away from your 'fudging' comment.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-013-3153-5#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-013-0452-4#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1171-5
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

And since I feel generous with my time, do note that GCMs are gone. They're now ESMs.

 

[jack97]

IPCC bible.... Those are your words. Believe it or not, I have not read the fifth report, and I have barely touched the fourth. I read journal papers. If you keep track of the scientific literature, there is no need to read the IPCC reports. It is a very detailed literature review of the most important papers in the field and as such it is outstanding for people not well versed in the field. Perfect for 4th year undergraduate students and graduate students. IPCC reports were never meant for scientists to begin with. No scientist thinks it is a bible. The bible lovers are mostly on your team.

Modeler's transcript from the APS... GO READ THE SCIENCE !!! IN THE JOURNAL PAPERS !!! - here's a few regarding your el-nino statement. If you stick with the internet, you're left with false/fake/miselading stuff, or you're behind by quite a few years. Still not perfect, but worlds away from your 'fudging' comment.

So what? Its still using ensemble runs with different base models and feeding in new measured data. Even the strength of the upcoming El Nino is still an unknown and in debate.

If the underlying assumptions are flawed, hence the Q&A workshop from the American Physic Society (APS) then no matter how simulation runs you do... its still garbage out. They have still missed the mark when it comes to predicting observed temps at land and air. And missed the mark for sea level rates.

And since I feel generous with my time, do note that GCMs are gone. They're now ESMs.

haha.... thank you for your generous and pompousness time. Calling them different names still do not make them accurate.

 

[jack97]

......Still not perfect, but worlds away from your 'fudging' comment.

BTW... I work in a field where fudge factors are considered best guesses at the time. We call them that because it's a desire to ultimately get the unknowns out. Sometimes doable sometimes not. IMO, that's one philosophical differences between a hard science and a soft science discipline.

 

[jack97]

Well this thread has led me to look into historical warming and cooling trends and based on prehistoric data the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and the current ice caps are still from that time. Based on historical patterns we will go into another ice age in about 1500 years.

The biggest factor for generating CO2 - volcanoes.

Volcanic eruptions may have contributed to the inception and/or the end of ice age periods. At times during the paleoclimate, carbon dioxide levels were two or three times greater than today. Volcanoes and movements in continental plates contributed to high amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Not sure how we will stop that! Yes we generate lots of co2 and methane however, there are many other natural events that can generate much much more than humans can.

In terms of co2 look to the ocean as well. Sorry the paper is dry and full of formulas that is non compressible but its part of some recent works and follows up from past paper.

http://imars.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf



On 7/1/2014, a new satellite OCO-2 will launch. This will show a geographic distribution of the co2 sources and sinks. And hopefully shed insight to the climate processes.

 

[Cannonball]

In terms of co2 look to the ocean as well. Sorry the paper is dry and full of formulas that is non compressible but its part of some recent works and follows up from past paper.

http://imars.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

Absolutely. The oceans are critical to the whole discussion. Oceans have become a net sink of CO2 (and temperature). Their buffering capacity is pretty enormous and oceanic change is much slower than atmospheric. So the fact that oceanic impacts are being observed is really telling.

 

[jack97]

Absolutely. The oceans are critical to the whole discussion. Oceans have become a net sink of CO2 (and temperature). Their buffering capacity is pretty enormous and oceanic change is much slower than atmospheric. So the fact that oceanic impacts are being observed is really telling.

There has been studies which indicates the oceans act as a co2 source.... yes, source. As you may know or not know, that group of scientist has there own models (with underlying assumptions). A paper was published that showed during pre industrial ocean, it acted as a source. It implies the influx and eflux were not estimated properly. This is still model runs and a hypothesis, the co2 monitoring satellite soon to be launch will give better insight if this hypothesis is true.

 

[Cannonball]

There has been studies which indicates the oceans act as a co2 source.... yes, source. As you may know or not know, that group of scientist has there own models (with underlying assumptions). A paper was published that showed during pre industrial ocean, it acted as a source. This is still model runs and a hypothesis, the co2 monitoring satellite soon to be launch will give better insight if this hypothesis is true.

Yes, exactly. The pre-industrial oceans were a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. As industrial derived CO2 flooded the atmosphere the concentration gradient switched and the oceans have become a sink.

 

[jack97]

Yes, exactly. The pre-industrial oceans were a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. As industrial derived CO2 flooded the atmosphere the concentration gradient switched and the oceans have become a sink.

That's one hypothesis, the other is that they are still acting as sources. Satellite data will soon show which is the case.

 

[Cannonball]

That's one hypothesis, the other is that they are still acting as sources.

I am not a physical or chemical oceanographer (I assume you aren't either). But while getting my Masters degree in Coastal and Ocean Sciences I did take a lot of Physical and Chemical Oceanography classes. And I've been working the field for almost 20 years. That might be why I was able to understand the paper you cited while you found it "non compressible" (whatever that means). CO2 fluxes across ocean surfaces are very well studied. Studies like the one you linked to have done a very good job of showing those fluxes at local, regional, and global scales. None of them suggest that the global oceans are a present day net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[jack97]

Studies like the one you linked to have done a very good job of showing those fluxes at local, regional, and global scales. None of them suggest that the global oceans are a present day net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Some recent paper do suggest that they still are sources. As you said, we are not expert in this field. Instead of saying "he said/she said" we will get better insight in the coming months. knock on wood this launch will be successful than the first try at it.

 

[Cannonball]

Some recent paper do suggest that they still are sources.

Name one.

 

[fbrissette]

Some recent paper do suggest that they still are sources. As you said, we are not expert in this field. Instead of saying "he said/she said" we will get better insight in the coming months. knock on wood this launch will be successful than the first try at it.

No paper exists that show that the oceans are a net source of CO2. There is no (like none, zero, zilch) debate about the fact that the ocean is currently a sink. And by sink I mean 50% of all the human CO2 emissions. We don't need a satellite to know that. OCO is about spatial variability of sources and sinks and better measurements, especially over land. It is NOT about whether or not the ocean is a sink.

You seem unable or unwilling to read and understand any scientific work. You don't need to be a chemical oceanographer to understand the carbon cycle. A basic science background and willingness to learn is sufficient.

BTW, GCMs and ESMs are NOT the same thing. The difference is linked to this very discussion.

 

[jack97]

authors believe the processes in the ocean's carbon cycle did not stay constant in the past and will not be in the future. So it may still act as sources in certain regions, net effect globally, a source

http://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~marina/PUBLI/subdu_revised_2.pdf


studied along the Northern CA coast
http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/4419/2013/bg-10-4419-2013.html



and finally this, two references are cited.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/42887/1/12-0214_A1b.pdf

 

[jack97]

We don't need a satellite to know that. OCO is about spatial variability of sources and sinks and better measurements, especially over land. It is NOT about whether or not the ocean is a sink.

You seem unable or unwilling to read and understand any scientific work. You don't need to be a chemical oceanographer to understand the carbon cycle. A basic science background and willingness to learn is sufficient.

Getting data that correlates to a hypothesis is really the essence of science. The more data the better and getting it in a different manner would just make the hypothesis stronger. The problem with doing science thru modeling is that the assumptions for the model is based on a hypothesis to begin with and that may be wrong so its becomes a spinning wheel of getting nowhere.

When things don't match you don't throw out the data, you look for other sources of data and if it still doesn't match, you throw out the hypothesis.

 

[Cannonball]

authors believe the processes in the ocean's carbon cycle did not stay constant in the past and will not be in the future. So it may still act as sources in certain regions, net effect globally, a source

http://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~marina/PUBLI/subdu_revised_2.pdf


studied along the Northern CA coast
http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/4419/2013/bg-10-4419-2013.html



and finally this, two references are cited.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/42887/1/12-0214_A1b.pdf

From the introduction of the 1st article you posted:
"The ocean is a major component of the global carbon cycle, emitting over 330 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year, or about 10 times that emitted fossil fuel combustion and all other human
activities [1, 2]. The ocean reabsorbs a comparable amount of CO2 each year, along with ~25% of the CO2 emitted
by these human activities. The nature and geographic distribution of the processes controlling these ocean CO2
fluxes are still poorly constrained by observations. A better understanding of these processes is essential to predict
how this important CO2 sink may evolve as the climate changes.

The 2nd article is about local, coastal processes related to upwelling. This is very much like the article you posted earlier today. Very sound science about small-scale processes and their role global ocean process. Specifically their role in relation to the global oceans as a net sink for CO2

3rd article is very clear and consistent about the basic understanding of present day global oceans as a carbon sink.

I seriously don't understand your approach here. You have posted at least 4 scientific articles today that show very sound science which completely debunk your argument. I can't tell if you just can't comprehend them or if you are building up to something.

 

[fbrissette]

authors believe the processes in the ocean's carbon cycle did not stay constant in the past and will not be in the future. So it may still act as sources in certain regions, net effect globally, a source

Of course the ocean's role has varied in time. It interacts with the atmosphere ! (try Henry's law) We are having a discussion about oceans being a net sink. Throwing a paper on coastal upwelling means you're either arguing with bad faith or have no idea what you are talking about. I repeat - there is no debate as to whether or not the oceans are a net sink - No debate whatsoever.

Think about this - the oceans are getting more acidic all over the world. Why is that ?

 

[jack97]

3rd article is very clear and consistent about the basic understanding of present day global oceans as a carbon sink.

I seriously don't understand your approach here. You have posted at least 4 scientific articles today that show very sound science which completely debunk your argument. I can't tell if you just can't comprehend them or if you are building up to something.

Last article states the ocean emits 10 ten times more co2 than man made fossil fuels. And yes I read that it sinks, 25% of human activities. It's still a co2 source, just less. But taken another way, that leads credibility to the energy balance argument. Taken another way, its forces us to re-examine the energy balance argument. These are estimates and they do not take into account various feedbacks in the climate process.

It's about the science and understanding. Here's where I stand so far until the data changes;
1. AGW is still a flawed hypothesis b/c of the temp pause and no troposphere hotspot
2. The extra co2 is another issue and that's where the co2 sequestration will give us a better understanding.