+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️  (Read 76095 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #120 on: October 22, 2014, 08:35:36 pm »
Ocean heat storage: a particularly lousy policy target + Update       

Figure 1. Ocean heat content in the surface layer (top panel, various data sets) and the mid-depth (700-2000 m) and deep ocean (bottom panel), from the IPCC AR5 (Fig. 3.2 – see caption there for details). Note that uncertainties are larger than for global mean temperature, the data don’t go as far back (1850 for global mean temperature) and data from the deep ocean are particularly sparse, so that only a trend line is shown.

The New York Times, 12 December 2027:  After 12 years of debate and negotiation, kicked off in Paris in 2015, world leaders have finally agreed to ditch the goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C. Instead, they have agreed to the new goal of limiting global ocean heat content to 1024 Joules.

The decision was widely welcomed by the science and policy communities as a great step forward. “In the past, the 2 °C goal has allowed some governments to pretend that they are taking serious action to mitigate global warming, when in reality they have achieved almost nothing. I’m sure that this can’t happen again with the new 1024 Joules goal”, said David Victor, a professor of international relations who originally proposed this change back in 2014. And an unnamed senior EU negotiator commented: “Perhaps I shouldn’t say this, but some heads of state had trouble understanding the implications of the 2 °C target; sometimes they even accidentally talked of limiting global warming to 2%.

I’m glad that we now have those 1024 Joules which are much easier to grasp for policy makers and the public.” This fictitious newspaper item  ;D  is of course absurd and will never become reality, because ocean heat content is unsuited as a climate policy target.
Here are three main reasons why.
1. Ocean heat content is extremely unresponsive to policy.

2. Ocean heat content has no direct relation to any impacts.
3. Ocean heat content is difficult to measure.
The reason is that you have to measure tiny temperature changes over a huge volume, rather than much larger changes just over a surface.

Ocean heat content estimates have gone through a number of revisions, instrument calibration issues etc. If we were systematically off by just 0.05 °C throughout the oceans due to some instrument drift, the error would larger than the entire ocean heat uptake since 1970. :o  If the surface measurements were off by 0.05 °C, this would be a negligible correction compared to the 0.7 °C surface warming observed since 1950.

Article at link (for geeks only  ;D):

Agelbert Comment:  ;D

I fully agree with the author of this article. Not only is the idea of using the ocean temperature as a target flawed from the point of view of a "hiatus" that never actually existed but it smacks of another, "long view" technique the fossil fuel industry can use to claim they can continue to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels without "undue" deleterious effects on our climate and biosphere.

I have two questions for climate scientists. The first one is about ocean temperatures with particular regard to heat exchange at the surface. It is a fact that the surface of two thirds of the planet is ocean and that part (on the average) is getting warmer.

Have the models incorporated the effect of salinity on ocean surface vapor pressure changes? It is a fact that fresh water has a higher specific heat than salt water. However, salt water, because of the molecular adhesive forces of the sodium and chloride ions, requires more energy, despite having a lower specific heat, to release (evaporate) H2O and heat into the atmosphere. Then there is the effect of more fresh water coming off of glaciers reducing salinity in some ocean surface areas which, in theory, would increase the heat storage capacity in the surface layers even while the evaporation rate is facilitated.

I ask all this because it seems logical that, if there is empirical evidence that the surface layers of the ocean are warming at a faster rate than the atmosphere, a punctuated equilibrium phenomenon could be building up where, at a certain point, a combination of reduced salinity and increased temperature could cause a large amount of heat exchange from the oceans into the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating atmospheric heating.

And all this is above and beyond he deleterious effects of decreased pH on the thousands of species of marine CaCo3 shelled organisms due to green House gases.

My second question is, considering there are billions of internal combustion engines running 24/7 on the surface of our planet and in constant and intimate contact with the atmosphere, do the models that predict the rate of atmospheric warming from green house gases also include the infrared radiation from all those internal combustion engines?

The green house gas pollution comes from engines that are only 18 to 22% efficient, except for the large turbines run by utilities that can reach up to 60%. My point is that we have nearly 80% of the energy produced from internal combustion engines being converted to heat that immediately enters the atmospheric mix. Is this not considered statistically significant in the light of the massive amount of IR heat per square meter that we have arriving on the planet from the sun?

If an estimate of that heat load and a scientific study to measure and quantify it has not been done, it should be done. We have alternatives. If it could be proven scientifically that the IR contribution by the internal combustion engines is deleterious to the biosphere, it would boost the transition to non thermal mechanical energy applications like solar powered electric vehicles or at least batteries charged exclusively by solar power for said vehicles.

About 157,000 vehicles are manufactured each day on this planet. Why should we allow our vehicles to get only 20% mechanical energy and release 80% heat into the atmosphere when an electric motor is at least 70% efficient?

We need scientists to speak loudly and clearly that fossil fuels are deleterious to the biosphere. The status quo is not healthy or sustainable. You know that. Can you help to end the fossil fuel age? It's high time we stopped digging our own graves on behalf of profit over planet.
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm