Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
|
The graph you posted show the thermocline at about 150m to 350m.
Now look at the rest of the figure... specifically the right side. At what depths does the temperature change the most? What's that, ~350 to ~700m?
Now, if depths greater than 700m stay constant at ~5C regardless of latitude and only the upper 700m respond to surface temperature changes, where do you think we should look for the effects of surface temperature changes? If the shallow (seasonal) thermocline responds to short-term temperature fluctuations (like a warm summer or cold winter, i.e. noise), where do you think we should look for the effects of long-term temperature fluctuations?
.And THOSE arent even accurate averages of the zones.
Oh yeah? Why not? Did your fish finder tell you otherwise?
You are a clueless idiot. Seriously, this is like my gf (a vegetarian since age 5) trying to tell you how to stuff dead animals or how to handle meat... things you are clearly the expert in. You are guilty of the same sh#t you accuse the spotted owl "environmentalists" of... pretending to know something you don't know sh#t about and unwilling to listen to people who have been studying it longer and in far more depth than you could ever imagine. You are a jackass.
(FortMental, you talking to me? My BS and MS are in hard rock/stable isotope geochem, but my PhD dealt a fair bit with climate. I have a whole chapter on using temperature with depth to constrain recharge/discharge rates. Climate sh#t is way harder than hard rock geochem.)
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
|
You would look for long-term (decadal) changes in temperature in the noisy surface layer that is most effected by waves and seasonal fluctuations? Or right AT the thermocline, where temperature changes the fastest with depth... introducing much larger T errors associated with any slight errors in depth?
And that is why you stuff dead animals rather than study climate.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
|
Thermocline depth varies in different parts of the oceans. The graph below shows that 700m is reasonable to use as an average.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
|
Anderson's head exploded long ago. We see only the pussy remains today.
Perhaps, Anderson missed this part:
The thermocline's depth varies in different parts of the ocean. .
It's a pictoral representation of the concept of a thermocline. It's not an actual thermocline graph. No single thermocline graph can represent all thermoclines. Why this needs to be explained to Anderson is stunning.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 01:29pm PT
|
And that's exactly what it was supposed to show, idiot.
The graph below shows that 700m is reasonable to use as an average.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:13pm PT
|
And a thermocline has got nothing do with a .18f global average ocean temp rise.
The temp drop from the top of the ocean to the bottom is many degrees.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:19pm PT
|
You are still having issues with mass and heat content.
Is the surface layer warming only .18f Anderson?
You know, the layer that gives us El-Nino and La-Nina?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:26pm PT
|
Good.
Did you know that when heat content of a large mass is transferred to a smaller mass, the temp rise of the smaller mass is more than the temp drop of the larger mass?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 03:04pm PT
|
In the midst of the sprayfest here, My inbox delivered the Table of Contents for the current Journal of Economic Literature (a publication of the American Economic Association) today, containing three articles on the question that underlies the real intellectual conflict in this area, viz. what to do about greenhouse gas emissions. The Specific articles, all in Vol. 51(3) (2013):
Nicholas Stern, "The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models" (pp. 838-859);
Robert S. Pindyck, "Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?" (pp. 860-872); and
Martin L. Weitzman, "Tail-Hedge Discounting and the Social Cost of Carbon" (pp. 873-882).
None of the authors could be described as "deniers," although the Guardian was extremely critical of Stern for the report his Commission issued in 2006 because it didn't reflect the same views as the hard left wanted. They have since decided Stern is OK after all, since he now believes his report underestimated the risk of climate change.
That said, all three recognize the relative arbitrariness of trying to measure the social cost of carbon emissions. Stern and Pindyck both go on to opine, however, that we are underestimating the cost of large changes in claimte. IMHO (in this case it really is humble, because after five years of effort, I have yet to come up with anything resembling a useful model of the social cost of carbon emissions) they are correct, but they concentrate on just one of this distribution's two tails.
Stern and Pindyck have excellent discussions of the potential risk of unmitigated climate change. In particular, they consider the likely conflicts that would arise from such change. I find too many people who argue that any climate change would be benign or beneficial ignore the likelihood of conflict in their analyses.
By the same token, though, I find that people who see the potentially massive cost of unmitigated carbon emissions often fail to consider the true cost of reducing those emissions. The potential damage to the world economy, and the likely conflicts that would cause, have at least some positive probability of being unnecessary.
How do we account for potentially massive costs of being wrong? Here, I find Weitzman's paper, in some contrast to the other two, presenting a very useful framework. He suggests that humanity's inherent risk aversion requires us to discount the cost of catastrophic events less than we would discount the cost of benign ones. In other words, if we can pursue a strategy that allows the prospect of economic gain in all outcomes, we probably value that strategy more highly than one that produces a much bigger gain in benign outcomes, but produces catastrophic consequences if we guess wrong. That is, after all, why we buy insurance.
I haven't had time to really study the three papers, much less their references, in the depth I will later, but I found the issue timely, even if they aren't as vacuously entertaining as reading this thread.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
|
JE: ". . .containing three articles on the question that underlies the real intellectual conflict in this area, viz. what to do about greenhouse gas emissions."
FortMental: "There's no conflict about what to do about them: reduce them. But first, if the deniers on this thread are representative of the majority of Merkins, we have to wait for these neanderthals to die."
I guess I was wrong. We have a perfectly workable policy without debate.
;-)
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 04:05pm PT
|
..not to mention the fact that this premise (beneficial climate change) is, on it's [sic] face, preposterous, absurd, and ridiculous.
That depends how much, but if you've read my earlier posts, you'd know that I think climate change is real, I think that human activities are a major contributor, I think the potential is catastrophic, and I think we ought to take action about it.
But continue.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 05:12pm PT
|
Rong really should wear a mask when gluing jackalopes.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 05:29pm PT
|
Base, that was a measured and balanced viewpoint you advanced there. Too bad more of the discussion can't be like this.
Chiloe's response ( which I just now saw) to my last post addressing questions about past geologic events, co2 fluctuations, and the attempted impugning of Ian Plimer's reputation seems to be a mixture of semantics and admission of fact. I'll have to examine it more carefully before reply.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
|
Interesting new paper by Rubino et al. (2013) in Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres presents new high-resolution data and analysis of CO2 variation using data from Law Dome (East Antarctic) ice cores and firn measurements from Law Dome and the South Pole, together covering the past 1,000 years (to 2001). Their findings about industrial-era variations in CO2, which I slightly paraphrase below, add some new information.
* During the Industrial Period, two distinct slopes of CO2 growth can be distinguished before and after 1960 A.D. due to an acceleration of the release of anthropogenically derived CO2 with the postwar economic boom.
* The ocean and the terrestrial biosphere carbon fluxes were significantly larger in the Industrial Period than during the late pre-industrial Holocene. Ocean and land both became strong sinks of CO2 because of the effect of the increasing atmospheric CO2 on those carbon pools.
* The new record confirms the significant flattening of d13C during the period 1915–1950 A.D. Trudinger [2000, 2002b] looked in detail at the 1940s flattening in CO2 and the simultaneous d13C variation. Taking into account the effect of firn diffusion and bubble trapping, they concluded that these CO2 and d13C variations required almost 3 GtC/yr uptake around 1945–1948 that was mostly oceanic, but could have been up to one third biospheric. For the 1940s flattening, we believe that the atmospheric event probably occurred around 5 years later than is indicated in the ice core record dated with constant gas-age/ice-age difference.
* The role of the ocean in the 1940s is rather interesting since the terrestrial biosphere is usually thought to be responsible for short-term (decadal) atmospheric CO2 variations, and will require further investigation in the future to understand the cause of the increased ocean uptake (biochemical causes such as the dust peak measured in Antarctic ice).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2013 - 06:27pm PT
|
Obviously far more than yours
The Chief, there is nothing obvious about that at all.
But, truth be told, I was hoping that she does love you and that you are able to show her love, caring, and more than anything, respect. Because from what I've seen, you seem to be unable to show that to anybody.
Oh, and your new avatar is exactly perfect for you.
A child telling the world to F-off:
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
|
hey Chef, how's the crotch rocket?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 07:28pm PT
|
Riley completely nails it. They ARE illiterate.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 08:22pm PT
|
I won't sexually deprive FortMental!
nice edit there, Chiefy.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 12:21am PT
|
Rong, you mentioned air pollution in LA has improved since 1980. You realize the 1980 pollution levels were about the same as the 1970 levels, despite a huge increase in population and hence miles driven. Ready to pull you head out of your ass and acknowledge WHY?
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/requirements.html
And yes, there are people out there who still criticize the clean air act... the only reason LA's air is as "clean" as it is.
http://bit.ly/1fAOlzo
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!