Wow, see Trumps Climate and Energy Policy just put up on the White House Site

[bkp_duke]

Which is it? Yes. Warm water holds less gas under static conditions... but we're increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere which is why even as the oceans warm they are absorb more CO2 increasing the acidity. I'm betting that NOAA has a trained chemist or two also.

It actually indicates that the ocean reached it's "buffering capacity" for CO2, or is approaching it. I.e. it soaked up all the CO2 it could. As temperatures rise, the cycle accelerates.

I'm not doubting NOAA - I'm doubting your ability to understand the details of the science. The impression I get from you is you're a "headlines" kinda guy, and that's about it. Sensationalism to make your point, but gloss over the words that are larger than 2 syllables.

In fact, just for you, I'll quote NOAA here (for the simpleton in the room):
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/teachingclimate/acid_base_chemistry_teacher.pdf

"The oceans have the ability to “absorb” or buffer the additional acids entering the water as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere; however, if there is too much acid, the buffering systems become overwhelmed and the pH in the oceans begin to drop."


That last line is the key there chap, you don't get a free ride for ever, and once the "buffering" capacity is hit, atmospheric CO2 skyrockets (like in the last 2 years) because it no longer has anywhere in the water to be sequestered. That increased atmospheric CO2 further drives warming, which pulls MORE CO2 out of the ocean. Etc. Etc.

It's an intertwined cycle that once started tends to run out of control:
Burn Carbon Fuels --> Increase Atmos CO2 --> Absorbed by Ocean (helps slow the rate of rise in Atmos CO2) --> Lowers pH --> buffering capacity overwhelmed (I.e. ocean cannot absorb any further significant CO2) --> Atmos CO2 skyrockets --> warming accelerates --> Ocean temp rises --> accelerates the chemical reaction of HCO3- (the Atmos CO2 that was previously absorbed and converted to an ion) to CO2 gas --> further increases atmos CO2 --> further accelerates warming

 

[bkp_duke]

Pure and simple lack of facts and solar PR out there... not just for low income but for everybody. And it is totally understandable, because the cost of solar has changed so radically over past 10 years. Gone from 20 to sometimes as low as 5 year payback.

Truth is that there are many companies ( like solar city ) willing to make the up front capital investment for solar buyers, charge them competitive rates for a decade, then turn over "free" energy after that. For those who cannot afford the up front capital cost.

There is also a pretty strong desire among many low to middle income families to be as independent as possible, and solar fits that.

Problem is awareness. Builders, architects, mortgage lenders, and real estate agents are the trusted participants in housing decisions. Few of them, particularly in lower income areas, know the current technology or economics.

Personally, I find that the [highly fragmented] solar industry has done a poor job of communicating and marketing. if you ask Joe bagadonutz what solar company he is aware of, he'd likely say "Solyndra". Would like to help change that. Suggestions?

I would love to agree with you, but the problem is we are NOT talking about middle-income families here. We are talking about people that scrap by on 30-50,000 per year. At that income, and given that they don't have even a 3 month emergency fund (or less), they just don't have the finances to get on board the solar wagon. They cannot pay for it out of pocket, and they most of the time will not qualify for a loan or financing.

I agree that the word could be gotten out better, but there are a lot of people that don't live on the coasts that don't have the up-front cash or credit to get into Solar.

 

[nwdiver]

[/QUOTE]

I'm not doubting NOAA - I'm doubting your ability to understand the details of the science. The impression I get from you is you're a "headlines" kinda guy, and that's about it. Sensationalism to make your point, but gloss over the words that are larger than 2 syllables.

???? My post that you quoted was that CO2 not SO2 was responsible for the bulk of ocean acidification. Enlighten me... what was incorrect or sensationalistic about that?

Most of the ocean acidification was due to CO2 not SO2. Acid rain is more a threat to terrestrial life. It's the MASSIVE amounts of CO2 getting absorbed from the air that's the issue for oceans.

I think we're talking past each other... I don't disagree with much that you've posted... I'm not claiming that the oceans are a free ticket to carbon emissions... they obviously have a limit to how much CO2 they can absorb and that limit declines as they warm. The only post I took issue with was this;

Incorrect. Trained chemist here, and as the oceans warm they RELEASE more CO2, instead of absorb it. It's actually a double wammy for the atmosphere.

You're implying that the oceans are in the process of releasing CO2 which isn't currently true.

 

[bkp_duke]

???? My post that you quoted was that CO2 not SO2 was responsible for the bulk of ocean acidification. Enlighten me... what was incorrect or sensationalistic about that?

The incorrect part is we are far enough down the cycle now that the oceans are not pulling in "MASSIVE" amounts of CO2 anymore. They are releasing it now. We're past the inflection point on the graph (visible by the skyrocket in atmospheric CO2 without really corresponding changes in emission - i.e. atmospheric CO2 doubled in 2 years, but our production of it certainly did not).

 

[nwdiver]

The incorrect part is we are far enough down the cycle now that the oceans are not pulling in "MASSIVE" amounts of CO2 anymore. They are releasing it now.

Not according to NOAA...

According to CT2015, the world's oceans absorb 1.8 to 2.9 PgC yr-1. This natural sink exists as a direct result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as dissolved carbon concentrations in the ocean increase to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere.

 

[bkp_duke]

Not according to NOAA...

According to CT2015, the world's oceans absorb 1.8 to 2.9 PgC yr-1. This natural sink exists as a direct result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as dissolved carbon concentrations in the ocean increase to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere.

"The current release of CarbonTracker, CT2015, provides global estimates of surface-atmosphere fluxes of CO2 from January 2000 through December 2014."

Interesting, out of date data (before the 400 ppm atmospheric level of CO2).

You will have to do better than that.

 

[bkp_duke]

Not according to NOAA...

According to CT2015, the world's oceans absorb 1.8 to 2.9 PgC yr-1. This natural sink exists as a direct result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as dissolved carbon concentrations in the ocean increase to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere.

Funny, even your own source showed back then we were putting in CO2 faster than the annual absorption rate:

"From 2001 through 2014, CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels in CT2015 rose from 6.8 PgC yr-1 to 9.8 PgC yr-1"

"According to CT2015, the world's oceans absorb 1.8 to 2.9 PgC yr-1"

By the end of 2014, we were pumping out CO2 at 4 times the rate NOAA calculated that the oceans were absorbing it.

 

[nwdiver]

"The current release of CarbonTracker, CT2015, provides global estimates of surface-atmosphere fluxes of CO2 from January 2000 through December 2014."

Interesting, out of date data (before the 400 ppm atmospheric level of CO2).

You will have to do better than that.

.... really don't think that kind of thing turns on a dime...

You can also run the numbers yourself;

FACT:
Earths atmosphere is ~5.1E18 kg
SOURCE:
NASA

FACT:
Global CO2 emmissions from fossil fuels is ~2.9E13 kg
SOURCE:
IEA

Big chunk of carbon missing given the rise in atmospheric concentration... only one place it could be going...

Funny, even your own source showed back then we were putting in CO2 faster than the annual absorption rate:

??? Did I dispute that we're adding CO2 at a faster rate than the oceans can absorb? CO2 levels are rising... obviously that's true....

You misunderstand me... atmospheric AND oceanic levels are rising.... you appear to have me pegged as some kind of AGW denier... not sure why. I agree with everything you've posted except for the oceans being a source of CO2. I'm not claiming this as a mitigating factor; quite the contrary... ocean acidification is the evil twin of global warming and all the more reason to take aggressive action.

By the end of 2014, we were pumping out CO2 at 4 times the rate NOAA calculated that the oceans were absorbing it.

Agreed.

 

[bkp_duke]

You misunderstand me... atmospheric AND oceanic levels are rising.... you appear to have me pegged as some kind of AGW denier... not sure why. I agree with everything you've posted except for the oceans being a source of CO2. I'm not claiming this as a mitigating factor; quite the contrary... ocean acidification is the evil twin of global warming and all the more reason to take aggressive action.

The point is, now that we are past the inflection point (400 ppm CO2 atmospheric), the Oceans are likely already releasing more CO2 than they are absorbing. If not, they are certainly on their way and the rising temps will only accelerate this process because it reduces the amount of CO2 that they can hold.

 

[nwdiver]

The point is, now that we are past the inflection point (400 ppm CO2 atmospheric), the Oceans are likely already releasing more CO2 than they are absorbing. If not, they are certainly on their way and the rising temps will only accelerate this process because it reduces the amount of CO2 that they can hold.

Source?

Everything I've seen points to oceans that are absorbing MORE CO2 every year. As you pointed out we're adding much more CO2 to the atmosphere than the oceans can absorb. They will continue to absorb CO2 until equilibrium is reached. If atmospheric levels keep rising then that equilibrium will get further away and the oceans will be more of a sink. Yes, it's true that the temperature of the ocean effects where that equilibrium is but the oceans are huge and very slow to warm.

I think we're on the same team here so it's kinda pointless to argue wether the oceans are a source or a sink. The end result is the same... we have to aggressively reduce our CO2 emissions. But... you can't make unsubstantiated claims like 'The oceans have reached their ability to absorb CO2' if you hope to win debate points elsewhere.... that claim is fairly easy to disprove.... if I'm mistaken than please cite a source.

Warming oceans were the primary source of CO2 during past climate shifts but that was before Billions of apes discovered other ways to influence atmospheric CO2.

 

[bkp_duke]

Actually, the rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans is tapering off. THE foremost lab that studies this is here in San Deigo, and they occasionally put up some nice blog posts (in addition to excellent pier-reviewed scientific papers). These are the guys that provide the standards for the rest of the world to measure CO2 levels in the ocean.

This one from 2013 is of particular interest:
How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?

"...starting with the simple one that as one dissolves CO2 into a given volume of seawater, there is a growing resistance to adding still more CO2."

"Human fossil fuel use is also behind a general warming trend in the oceans observed over the past 50 years that increases the resistance to CO2 uptake."

"Furthermore, in the absence of such warming, ocean mixing would normally be expected to be constantly refreshing the water at the ocean’s surface, the place where it meets with air and dissolves CO2. Instead global warming leaves surface water in place to an increasing degree thus slowing down the transfer of CO2 from the ocean surface deeper into the ocean."

The really scary thing is that long after we curb our CO2 emissions back to say even 1980 levels, the Ocean and land masses will keep releasing what they have stored up from the beginning of the industrial revolution to keep levels high.

They cover this phenomenon in this shorter blog post:
Why Has a Drop in Global CO2 Emissions Not Caused CO2 Levels in the Atmosphere to Stabilize?

"Eventually, additional emissions cuts would be required because the sinks will slowly lose their efficiency as the land and ocean start to saturate. A permanent stabilization at current levels therefore requires both an immediate 50-percent cut as well as a slow tapering thereafter, eventually approaching zero emissions. The recent stabilization in emissions might be viewed as a very small first step toward the required cuts."

 

[tomas]

I would love to agree with you, but the problem is we are NOT talking about middle-income families here. We are talking about people that scrap by on 30-50,000 per year. At that income, and given that they don't have even a 3 month emergency fund (or less), they just don't have the finances to get on board the solar wagon. They cannot pay for it out of pocket, and they most of the time will not qualify for a loan or financing.

I agree that the word could be gotten out better, but there are a lot of people that don't live on the coasts that don't have the up-front cash or credit to get into Solar.

What solar city and ilk do is a PPA, not a loan. I don't know their credit criteria, but since they in essence are just replacing the power bill, it is no added cost to the consumer so doesn't worsen leverage. Sure there are some people whose credit is so bad they would not qualify. But there are many in lower middle class territory who could and should. Throughout the country, not just on coasts.

 

[nwdiver]

Actually, the rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans is tapering off. THE foremost lab that studies this is here in San Deigo, and they occasionally put up some nice blog posts (in addition to excellent pier-reviewed scientific papers). These are the guys that provide the standards for the rest of the world to measure CO2 levels in the ocean.

The absorption capacity of the oceans is limited... they were a source of CO2 in the past and I have no doubt that they will be again in the future. But according to your source that sure appears to be decades or centuries away...

As a result, ocean waters deeper than 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) have a large but still unrealized absorption capacity, said Scripps geochemist Ralph Keeling. The rapid emissions growth is unlikely to continue much longer as the reserves of conventional oil, coal, and gas become depleted and steps are taken to reduce emissions and limit climate impacts. As emissions slow in the future, the oceans will continue to absorb excess CO2 emitted in the past that is still in the air, and this excess will spread into ever-deeper layers of the ocean. The ocean uptake, when expressed as a percent of emissions, will therefore inevitably increase and eventually, 50 to 80 percent of CO2 cumulative emissions will likely reside in the oceans, Keeling said.

If we were having a less general debate about the validity of AGW why present such a large factual target? The oceans are a carbon sink... that's also part of the problem. Stick with that and there's really no way to refute it. The end conclusion remains the same. CO2 emissions are a threat that need to be dealt with. Making the claim that the oceans are no longer absorbing CO2 is a forced error that does nothing to strengthen the argument....

 

[hockeythug]

What solar city and ilk do is a PPA, not a loan. I don't know their credit criteria, but since they in essence are just replacing the power bill, it is no added cost to the consumer so doesn't worsen leverage. Sure there are some people whose credit is so bad they would not qualify. But there are many in lower middle class territory who could and should. Throughout the country, not just on coasts.

Oh yeah, just sign up for a 20 year payment plan. I'm sure that's right at the top of the list for low income families. Screw health insurance or groceries. Who are you to tell people what they "should" do anyways?

 

[Dcr26]

The fuel powering your Tesla comes mostly from fossil fuels at this time. So yes we need to manage how coal and oil are producedand utilized, but wind and sun are not enough right now

Yes but power plants generating electricity using fossil fuels are more efficient than ICE engines in cars

 

[nwdiver]

Oh yeah, just sign up for a 20 year payment plan. I'm sure that's right at the top of the list for low income families. Screw health insurance or groceries. Who are you to tell people what they "should" do anyways?

They can do what ever they like... but if they insist on using the atmosphere as a dumping ground there's a fee.

 

[Seagram]

The Trump Administration Quietly Purges All Mention of Civil Rights and Climate Change from White House Website

Looks like we'll need to dream up some silly hats (T-hats??) and march on Washington......

 

[ggr]

In fact, just for you, I'll quote NOAA here (for the simpleton in the room):
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/teachingclimate/acid_base_chemistry_teacher.pdf

"The oceans have the ability to “absorb” or buffer the additional acids entering the water as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere; however, if there is too much acid, the buffering systems become overwhelmed and the pH in the oceans begin to drop."

Well, I'll just point out that you have misinterpreted this quote. "Buffering", or "Buffer", refers to alkalinity resisting acidification. If the buffering is overwhelmed, that means it isn't fighting the acidification. And the pH dropping means it's getting MORE acidic. And please don't hurl insults at one of the best contributors.

Yes, the rate of absorption is decreasing, but that doesn't mean it's releasing net CO2, just that it's approaching a new equilibrium.

(Hmmm, I live in San Diego too, I guess I must know what I'm talking about... I'll ask my SIO friends next time they come to dinner.)

 

[hockeythug]

They can do what ever they like... but if they insist on using the atmosphere as a dumping ground there's a fee.

Thankfully that isn't going to happen in America.

 

[ohmman]

Thankfully that isn't going to happen in America.

I have alternative facts.