|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 9, 2010 1:27:50 GMT
Ratty: Thanks for the links. I notice that the base period is 1961-1990 for the temp anomoly. I am more curious what the anomoly would look like using a much more recent base period. I see on that site that you can't change the perimiters of the base period.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 9, 2010 1:29:51 GMT
For assessment of the absurd, we can use some simplistic approximations to make a counter-point: Let's presume we get enough atmospheric CO2 to raise the Earth's temperature (atmosphere, land and ocean) by 5C... which some claim will happen in this century. Why will this make the oceans hugely acidic? The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is 0.3% at 3C, and only 0.25% at 8C. Raising the ocean's temperature 5C would cause 6E+12 tons of carbon dioxide to effervesce (Happy New Year) into the atmosphere, raising the atmospheric carbon dioxide by 1200 PPM (without consideration of the anthropogenic factor), would it not? And, if so, a) the acidity of the ocean would be measurably less, and b) since carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would then be about 385 plus 300 (from us) plus 1200 from the ocean, and it is such a potent greenhouse gas, Earth will become Venus... Oh, wait, that is where we were during the Jurassic (jurinko's post above), and the planet recovered. What ARE we to believe? Yes - Henry's law is alive and well Another of those balancing effects - as the vapor pressure of CO 2 increases its solubility increases - as temperatures go up its solubility goes down - and after a period of time the oceans will return to a balance. As the CO 2 increases lagged the warming into the interglacials by several centuries it looks like the outgassing is slow. However, solubility in fresh water droplets, i.e. clouds and rain which are cold and unsaturated - is high so CO 2 can wash out of the atmosphere quite fast.
|
|
utahpaw
New Member
The only thing that keeps us from learning is what we already know.
Posts: 15
|
Post by utahpaw on Jan 9, 2010 19:11:40 GMT
"The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time – when temperatures were as much as 10-15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 2 to 7 times higher than they are currently – provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment"
Nice thought. But is it true? Perhaps it only proves that the ocean does not change much** (at equilibrium) even with these dramatic changes in CO2 and temperature in the atmosphere... thereby making the coral hysteria as silly as the global warming hysteria.
**a) There is a huge excess pool of magnesium and calcium ion in the ocean, to irreversibly soak up a lot of carbonate. b) There is enhanced biotic extraction with more availability. c) Because of negative feedbacks, the surface of the ocean is not going to exceed about 32C, and cold water will continue to sink at the poles, so the ocean will not warm proportionately with the atmosphere. d) To the extent that some of the surface of the ocean (between the polar and equatorial regions) does warm with warming atmosphere, the solubility of carbon dioxide decreases in that (surface) region.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 9, 2010 21:48:43 GMT
"The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time – when temperatures were as much as 10-15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 2 to 7 times higher than they are currently – provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment" Nice thought. But is it true? Perhaps it only proves that the ocean does not change much** (at equilibrium) even with these dramatic changes in CO2 and temperature in the atmosphere... thereby making the coral hysteria as silly as the global warming hysteria. **a) There is a huge excess pool of magnesium and calcium ion in the ocean, to irreversibly soak up a lot of carbonate. b) There is enhanced biotic extraction with more availability. c) Because of negative feedbacks, the surface of the ocean is not going to exceed about 32C, and cold water will continue to sink at the poles, so the ocean will not warm proportionately with the atmosphere. d) To the extent that some of the surface of the ocean (between the polar and equatorial regions) does warm with warming atmosphere, the solubility of carbon dioxide decreases in that (surface) region. "c) Because of negative feedbacks, the surface of the ocean is not going to exceed about 32C, and cold water will continue to sink at the poles, so the ocean will not warm proportionately with the atmosphere."The cart is before the horse here. The oceans heat the atmosphere once in the atmosphere heat is on its way out to space. The reason that the sea surface temperatures do not tend to exceed ~32C is that the surface water starts evaporating taking the heat (latent heat of evaporation) and then rising as the wet adiabatic lapse rate causing convection and taking heat upward. The convection causes inflow of winds that increase the evaporation cooling the surface further. The winds lead to surface wave action that start mixing the cooled surface water with the deeper water bringing more heat to the surface. As the winds get stronger they move the surface water across the oceans piling it up at the far side - if the winds drop the sea level resets as the hot surface water flows back - this is the reason for the El Nino. As the El Nino warms the surface this leads to increased convection and the winds start increasing again. Although it makes for easier maths - the ocean and atmosphere systems are not stable and are continually and recursively feeding back on each other.
|
|
utahpaw
New Member
The only thing that keeps us from learning is what we already know.
Posts: 15
|
Post by utahpaw on Jan 10, 2010 6:12:26 GMT
"Although it makes for easier maths - the ocean and atmosphere systems are not stable and are continually and recursively feeding back on each other." Of course. I was simply pointing out that even if the atmosphere were to warm significantly (for whatever reason), it did not follow that the ocean would warm proportionately (or become proportionately more acidic). Have changes driven by the changed atmosphere, yes; drive changes in the atmosphere, yes; but not necessarily become less hospitable for coral and force coral to adapt. There are almost surely some boundary conditions which, if exceeded, will cause environmental systems to slip out of one meta-stable state into another; there are almost surely other boundary conditions which simply cannot be exceeded because, as the limit is approached, a (negative) feedback becomes stronger. To wit, the ocean is not going to become hot and acidic, even if a lot of CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere (as has happened on a major scale at least three times before in geologic history).
|
|
|
Post by sfbmikey on Jan 10, 2010 16:03:12 GMT
re: pennekamp.
there has been some significant die off, in particular the hard corals.
I went to the Christ of the deep in 2004 and the brain corals around it were almost all dead (granted that was after the big 2003 bleaching).
several dive sites have greatly inferior coral cover to when I first saw them in the early 90s, and reports have indicated the health of the reef has dropped.
I am NOT saying that global warming is causing it, or that it is unrecoverable, or that acidity is causing it.
I am saying that something bad is happening, and (apparently at least partly) human/warming fingerprints are on it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 10, 2010 20:06:12 GMT
re: pennekamp. there has been some significant die off, in particular the hard corals. I went to the Christ of the deep in 2004 and the brain corals around it were almost all dead (granted that was after the big 2003 bleaching). several dive sites have greatly inferior coral cover to when I first saw them in the early 90s, and reports have indicated the health of the reef has dropped. I am NOT saying that global warming is causing it, or that it is unrecoverable, or that acidity is causing it. I am saying that something bad is happening, and (apparently at least partly) human/warming fingerprints are on it. Having lived on or near Lake Huron my entire life, the prospect of human/warming fingerprints on lake levels have been exacerbated for the last 10-15 years. The same arguments, same dire warnings, same future doom of the Great Lakes as with everything else connected to AGW. I too have witnesses something considered "bad" happening to the Great Lakes, but is it anything abnormal? When the lake levels dropped, it was global warming. When lake levels rise as they now have, it is suddenly "natural variation". It is cyclical just like all else, but it doesn't stop the fund pimping scientists from making great pronouncements of certainty for permanent low levels, all as a result of "global warming". www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/greatlakes.htmlPhrases such as "unusually warm" and "mild winters" dominate the discussion. So what. I think the truth is they haven't a clue what is the underlying cause and effect. Extremely interesting, to me anyway, is this discovery of a link between solar activity and Mississippi river flow. ks.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/climate/If I may suggest, read the following on coral reefs www.co2science.org/education/reports/corals/coralreefs.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 10, 2010 20:34:56 GMT
I also found the link between the ole Mississippi River flow and solar cycles interesting. The Miss has a very large drainage basin and the matchup would support in a way Svensmarks theory. That rain/snow has to come from the sky, and the climate systems that enable that rain/snow to fall would appear to be affected by the solar cycle.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 10, 2010 21:42:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dagrump on Jan 10, 2010 22:18:33 GMT
RE: Pennekamp and the Florida Keys coral die off; From: secoora.org/documents/success-stories/coral-reef-decline"Combining MODIS and SeaWiFS data with field data, scientists were able to unravel the sequence of events believed to have led to the coral decline. Meteorological data, including rainfall at multiple rain gauges, river discharge data measured from US Geological Survey river gauges, wind speed from NASA’s Sea Winds/QuikSCAT scatterometer data, and Karenia brevis cell counts obtained from FMRI, support the idea that the co-occurrence of the following three factors caused the coral and sponge death: a local rare winter chlorophyll bloom, a bloom transported downcoast, and an influx of water rich in dissolved pigments. The combination of events acted synergistically. Following a K. brevis bloom off Charlotte Harbor, water was advected south towards the Florida Bight where it mixed with nutrient-rich river runoff from the Ten Thousand Island area. The decaying red tide plus riverine input triggered a Rhizosoliniaceae diatom bloom which grew to be nearly 60-km wide. As the dark water patch moved to the Keys, the situation was exasperated by slow water movement. Devoid of adequate circulation, dissolved oxygen levels decreased-a typical pattern following a large algal bloom. For filter feeding organisms like coral and sponges, the combination of high particulate matter, low oxygen concentration, and the presence of brevetoxin from K. brevis proved fatal. In contrast to early reports that claimed the coral death was the result of anthropogenic factors, the collaborative effort showed that the black water event had a natural origin and was the result of complex, but natural, biological and physical processes." There was no BLEACHING, there was die off of some hard corals due to non-anthropogenic causes. Temperature is certainly NOT the cause of any coral bleaching/die off in the Florida Keys. Our water temps vary over 30 F from summer to winter. Florida and the Keys are composed of ancient DEAD coral reefs. This has been happening for eons.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jan 11, 2010 1:31:23 GMT
Considering how long the corals have been around,and the many climatic changes that have occurred during that period, I am certainly not going to fear for their continued existence. Some few subspecies may have evolved themselves into a niche and become extinct - but corals were here long before man - and will almost certainly be here long after man has gone.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 12, 2010 1:38:00 GMT
Press release from the University of Exeter 11th Janurary via WUWT. "Coral can recover from climate change damage A study by the University of Exeter provides the first evidence that coral reefs can recover from the devastating effects of climate change. Published Monday 11 January in the journal PLOS One, the research shows for the first time that coral reefs located in marine reserves can recover from the impacts of global warming." *scratches head* Total propaganda. I guess if any form of life on the planet can adapt to climate change it's one that has evolved through 25 million years of wildly varying conditions, likely still has most of the genes which allowed this, and which release approximately 3 megaf***tonnes of eggs every hour (estimated).
|
|