Climate-gate

[Trippy]

This link is an example of what is bothering me here. The Keating link...

Kasting, not Keating.

unfortunately, only reassures in its apparent near-denial of the steam sterilization possibility.

Denial? It's a prediction based on the same physics that leads to the prediction of the anthropogenic climate change in the first place. For a long time their were two approaches. Kasting took the approach of doing calculations using the absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses. Hansen initially took the approach of approximating the atmosphere as a greybody, which he has subsequently admitted was inaccurate. It was the greybody approximation that gave rise to predictions of venusian doom.

No denial, just science.

The possibility of catastrophe is still on the table, and actually supported to some extent - we see a possibility of a feedback boosting of methane release leading to a climate regime which, while it does (if Keating holds up) damp and asymptotically hit a maximum, seems to have at least the potential of pushing that max to a level that would create a radically bad situation in human terms.

I don't recall commenting on how uncomfortable things would get, only that certain endpoint scenarios could be ruled out.

OK, it won't get to 41C average - but geez, that's not much in the way of comfort. How about 35C? The heat waves around such an asymptotic approach to that average would render geographic regions uninhabitable that currently support billions of people. We have to live with the fluctuations, after all - not just the average.

So, you're criticising the paper for things that were outside the scope of the original work and for contexts it was never presented in?

Smashing.

Meanwhile the likes of Hansen have finally recognize their error and have recently begun to include the CKD method into their models. No idea if any results have been published yet.

I triwd building a CKD spreadsheet model years ago (before i became aware of Kasting's work). It seemed like the only logical approach.

 

[Billy T]

... If you add more and more water to the atmosphere, with larger storms allowing the cloud tops to go higher and higher, your atmospheric water-CO2 scrubber becomes more and more efficient, bringing more CO2 lower in the atmosphere where its greenhouse impact is moderated.

I agree that removal both by green plants and ocean absorption can be increased by rain transport of CO2 from high altitude to the surface, but green plants only store CO2 until the die and decay and as oceans warm they absorb less, release more. - The net effect of acidification of the ocean must be considered too. For example, coral reefs, stored a lot of carbon, but their mass has been reduced by at least 30%. Likewise, where the rain falls is important too. The Amazon rain forest in 2013 had continuing and sever drought - was releasing more CO2 than US did. Droughts where in prior decades the green plants were net sinks for carbon are now net sources of CO2.

In 2005, parts of the Amazon basin experienced the worst drought in one hundred years,[61] and there were indications that 2006 could have been a second successive year of drought.[62] A July 23, 2006 article in the UK newspaper The Independent reported Woods Hole Research Center results showing that the forest in its present form could survive only three years of drought.[63][64] Scientists at the Brazilian National Institute of Amazonian Research argue in the article that this drought response, coupled with the effects of deforestation on regional climate, are pushing the rainforest towards a "tipping point" where it would irreversibly start to die. It concludes that the forest is on the brink of being turned into savanna or desert, with catastrophic consequences for the world's climate.... during 2005 instead 5 gigatons were released and in 2010 8 gigatons were released.

Ecosystem models that use expected climatic changes show large declines in net primary productivity (NPP) and release of carbon as a result of Amazonian forest dieback (Friend et al., 1997). In fact, climate change effects may change the current status of Amazonian forests from a net sink of atmospheric CO2 into a source, which will further contribute to dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 (IPCC 2001). GCM’s also suggest that a globally warmer world may result in a permanent El Niño-like state (Wara et al., 2005), which if manifested by drought conditions, could have huge impacts on the Amazon.

 

[Trippy]

I agree that removal both by green plants and ocean absorption can be increased by rain transport of CO2 from high altitude to the surface, but green plants only store CO2 until the die and decay and as oceans warm they absorb less, release more. - The net effect of acidification of the ocean must be considered too. For example, coral reefs, stored a lot of carbon, but their mass has been reduced by at least 30%. Likewise, where the rain falls is important too. The Amazon rain forest in 2013 had continuing and sever drought - was releasing more CO2 than US did. Droughts where in prior decades the green plants were net sinks for carbon are now net sources of CO2.

Don't ignore the carbonate compensation depth. I seem to recall a lecturer of mine suggesting that there was enough carbonate stored in the oceans to neutralize all of the carbon we can releaze into the atmosphere.

Also, while the solubility of gasses in water is inversely proportional to the temperature of the water, it's proportional to the partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere, and so while rising CO2 causes rising temperature it also increases the solubility of CO2 in seawater, so the net effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes a balance of these two opposing trends.

 

[Billy T]

Also, while the solubility of gasses in water is inversely proportional to the temperature of the water, it's proportional to the partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere, and so while rising CO2 causes rising temperature it also increases the solubility of CO2 in seawater, so the net effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes a balance of these two opposing trends.

Say CO2 in air were to double - go from 400ppm to 800ppm how would that compare with ocean average temp increasing 4C? - a faster out gassing rate vs. a faster absorption rate? Also, we really are more interested, I think, in the time constant than the final equilibrium conditions.

 

[iceaura]

No denial, just science.

What? How about "rejection", then. "Debunking"? If you prefer a different word, OK.

I don't recall commenting on how uncomfortable things would get, only that certain endpoint scenarios could be ruled out.

Exactly. And by "uncomfortable" we seem to be including some fairly dramatic, even lethal, circumstances. We ares accepting them as possibilities, at some level of probability that I for one would like a much more solid fix on.

So, you're criticising the paper for things that were outside the scope of the original work and for contexts it was never presented in?

Of course not. I'm not criticizing the paper at all.

I'm just pointing out that there is a bothersome lack of reassurance in such papers, the body of them as met in discussions I run into, relative to the issue of the risk of catastrophe we might, or might not, be running. The fact that such reassurance is outside their scope merely adds more emphasis to the observation. We're short of reassurances here, and that's not good - right?

and so while rising CO2 causes rising temperature it also increases the solubility of CO2 in seawater, so the net effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes a balance of these two opposing trends.

What's being "balanced" there are two bad trends, two significant harms. We lose either way.

 

[billvon]

I'm just pointing out that there is a bothersome lack of reassurance in such papers, the body of them as met in discussions I run into, relative to the issue of the risk of catastrophe we might, or might not, be running. The fact that such reassurance is outside their scope merely adds more emphasis to the observation. We're short of reassurances here, and that's not good - right?

?? I don't think that's good or bad. Such papers do not have reassurance as a goal. Most scientific papers take a narrow view of their subject due to the nature of research.

Imagine a cancer patient reading a paper on T-cell staining techniques, which described various methods of improving T-cell assays. That paper might well be "short of reassurances" for the cancer patient. But that's OK, because it is not the goal of the paper. Indeed, if the paper helps cancer researchers in their assays, it may well help the patient in the long run, even though it did nothing to reassure them,

 

[brucep]

This link is an example of what is bothering me here. The Keating link, unfortunately, only reassures in its apparent near-denial of the steam sterilization possibility. The possibility of catastrophe is still on the table, and actually supported to some extent - we see a possibility of a feedback boosting of methane release leading to a climate regime which, while it does (if Keating holds up) damp and asymptotically hit a maximum, seems to have at least the potential of pushing that max to a level that would create a radically bad situation in human terms. OK, it won't get to 41C average - but geez, that's not much in the way of comfort. How about 35C? The heat waves around such an asymptotic approach to that average would render geographic regions uninhabitable that currently support billions of people. We have to live with the fluctuations, after all - not just the average.

That's pretty much what the authors said in the paper I linked earlier for BillyT. That scares the fecal matter out of me. The question is are we, as a species, going to take this science seriously. So far the answer is no.

 

[iceaura]

?? I don't think that's good or bad. Such papers do not have reassurance as a goal. Most scientific papers take a narrow view of their subject due to the nature of research.

Finding reassurance is []i]my[/i] goal, not any particular researcher's.

What degree of risk of catastrophe are we running?

 

[billvon]

What degree of risk of catastrophe are we running?

Depends on your definition of 'catastrophe' I would think. If a mass extinction fits your definition then we are almost certain to have one; indeed it is well underway. If it involves the end of humanity as we know it within the next 100 years, then the risk is tiny.

 

[Trippy]

Dammit, this is my second time writing this out and my mood has deteriorated (firefox crashed while I was dealing with children).

What? How about "rejection", then. "Debunking"? If you prefer a different word, OK.

Generally denial implies rejection without regard to evidence and debunking is usually used in reference to pseudoscience.

Rejection would be my preferred term as that is what it amounts to - the evidence based rejection of a previously plausable hypothesis.

Exactly. And by "uncomfortable" we seem to be including some fairly dramatic, even lethal, circumstances. We ares accepting them as possibilities, at some level of probability that I for one would like a much more solid fix on.

Of course not. I'm not criticizing the paper at all.

I'm just pointing out that there is a bothersome lack of reassurance in such papers, the body of them as met in discussions I run into, relative to the issue of the risk of catastrophe we might, or might not, be running. The fact that such reassurance is outside their scope merely adds more emphasis to the observation. We're short of reassurances here, and that's not good - right?

I had so much written in response to this.

Basically, there are three reasons for you finding a lack of reassurance in this paper (and other like it).
1. There is none to be had.
2. It exists but the tool is not yet available or has not yet been applied appropriately.
3. It exists, but not where you're expecting to find it.

You're concerned about the first instance, much of my point in the previous post centered around the second two.

Basically, I suggested that yes, you might be right, there might be no reassurance to be had, alternatively, even the the tool (the correlated k distribution method) that might give you the reassurance you seek hasn't yet because science has become insular due to the increasing speciliazation required to advance ones career. This means that the tool that was developed by planetary scientests 40 years ago has stayed there and only recently found its way into the domain of climatology. In terms of the third possibility I suggested that the reassurance you seek may yet exist, it's just buried in a planetary science or astrophysics paper somewhere that's examined various scenarios for habitibility because of the increased interest in exoplanets and the geometric increase in their numbers.

What's being "balanced" there are two bad trends, two significant harms. We lose either way.

I can't work out here if you genuinely misunderstood what I said or not, so i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The solubility of gases in water is dependent on two variables, the temperature of the water and the partial pressure of the gas in question in the atmosphere.
So what we have is the scenario where we have the partial pressure of CO2 (ppCO2) in the atmosphere increasing over time. In a constant temperature environment this would cause the solubility of the CO2 in water to rise - as can be predicted by considering l'chatelier's principle.
As a consequence of the same increase in ppCO2 we have an increase in temperature. In a constant pressure environment, an increase in temperature would cause the solubility of CO2 in water to decrease this is true of all gases.
So what we have are three possible outcomes.
1. The effect of the rise in pressure exceeds the effect of the rise in temperature caused by that rise in pressure - this sets up a feedback loop where increasing ppCO2 increases the rate at which CO2 is absorbed directly by the oceans.
2. The effect of the rise in pressure is exceeded by the effect of the rise in temperature caused by that rise in pressure - this sets up a self accelerating feedback loop where the oceans emit increasingly greater CO2 to the atmosphere.
3. The effect of the rise in pressure is approximately equal to the effect of the rise in temperature caused by that rise in pressure - this means there is no feedback loop and the rate at which the ocean absorbs CO2 directly remains approximately constant.

And so the balance I was refering to was the balance between those processes, or, to put it another way, where the equilibrium point of the afforementioned dynamic equilibrium actually lies. My recollection, however, is that the effects of the changes in ppCO2 outweigh the effects of the changes in temperature, and that the effects of the change in temperature are primarily limited to small shallow tropical water bodies.

 

[Billy T]

Depends on your definition of 'catastrophe' I would think. ... If it involves the end of humanity as we know it within the next 100 years, then the risk is tiny.

How do you conclude this, based on what facts? Certainly that is the common opinion, just as that sun went around the earth once was.

Also just to be more direct, what will be the increase in average temperature 100 years form now?

 

[Billy T]

... The solubility of gases in water is dependent on two variables, the temperature of the water and the partial pressure of the gas in question in the atmosphere. ...

For a water/ air interface with large radius of curvature that is true, but very small drops, such as you were considering at high altitude it is not. For example: Δp (in atmosphere) for water drops of different radii at STP:

Droplet radius 1 mm has internal pressure nearly same as the external pressure only greater by 0.14%
Droplet radius 0.1 mm has internal pressure a little higher than the external pressure - greater by 1.44%
Droplet radius 1 μm has internal pressure much greater than the external pressure - greater by 143.6%
Droplet radius 10 nm has internal pressure very much greater than the external pressure - by 14,360%
Data from table at link of quote below.

The Clausius–Clapeyron relation ... explains why, because of surface tension, the vapor pressure for small droplets of liquid in suspension is greater than standard vapor pressure of that same liquid when the interface is flat. That is to say that when a liquid is forming small droplets, the equilibrium concentration of its vapor in its surroundings is greater. This arises because the pressure inside the droplet is greater than outside.

Thus for small dropplets the particial pressure of CO2 in side is MUCH LOWER, not higher as you suggested when the droplet is at high altitude. For example:
A droplet of radius 0.1mm has internal CO2 pressure less than the external CO2 partial pressure by 1.1%* Even if the concentration of CO2 were increased to 1000ppm or 1 part per thousand, and the altitude is such that the overall pressure is 10% less than at the surface, Then the external partial of CO2 is 0.9x0.001 = 0.000,9 atmosphere and the partial pressure inside the drop of CO2 is only 0.000,89 atmosphere.

I don't know, but bet that is less than the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean surface - If true then rain falling from high altitude probably lowers the partial pressure of the ocean of more significantly as the ocean is big and complex, the partial pressure in a puddle of fresh water.

The question is complex as larger drops will have more nearly the same pressure inside and outside, but again if at altitude where the overall pressure is 0.9 atmosphere they will bring that 10% lower partial pressure down too quickly (higher terminal fall speed) for them to come into equilibrium with the higher partial pressure near the surface.

Seems to me, you have in post 1023 the effect exactly backwards for both tiny and large drops falling from higher altitude. Is that correct?

I don't know if it is a correct POV, but I investigated surface tension effects as I think of the drop surface as permeable to gases and they leak out fast as the internal pressure is high.

*This data form same source but the table giving: "P/P0 for water drops of different radii at STP"

PS. I think you work with environmental subjects, so may be able to measure the concentration of CO2 in some falling rain you collect - can you test my conclusion above experimentally?

 

[billvon]

How do you conclude this, based on what facts?

The subjective definition of "catastrophe" is just that, subjective. Thus you have to define what you want the term to mean before you can assign the odds of it occurring.

Also just to be more direct, what will be the increase in average temperature 100 years form now?

Most likely an increase of between 1 and 5 degrees C, per IPCC AR5.

 

[Trippy]

For a water/ air interface with large radius of curvature that is true, but very small drops, such as you were considering at high altitude it is not.

So, you're cherry picking part of a sentence and ignoring the context given to it by the rest of the paragraph it was in.

For example: Δp (in atmosphere) for water drops of different radii at STP:

Droplet radius 1 mm has internal pressure nearly same as the external pressure only greater by 0.14%
Droplet radius 0.1 mm has internal pressure a little higher than the external pressure - greater by 1.44%
Droplet radius 1 μm has internal pressure much greater than the external pressure - greater by 143.6%
Droplet radius 10 nm has internal pressure very much greater than the external pressure - by 14,360%

On the one hand, you are correct, but only because you've ignored the context that the information you're disputing was presented - solubility is influenced by water drop size.
On the other hand, for a constant drop size increasing the partial pressure will still increase the solubility, as predicted by Henry's law and l'chateliers principle.
Additionally, then and now you're ignoring the fact that, unlike gases such as nitrogen and oxygen, when CO2 dissolves in water it reacts chemically with it to establish a further dynamic equilibrium.
Data from table at link of quote below.

Thus for small dropplets the particial pressure of CO2 in side is MUCH LOWER, not higher as you suggested when the droplet is at high altitude. For example:
A droplet of radius 0.1mm has internal CO2 pressure less than the external CO2 partial pressure by 1.1%* Even if the concentration of CO2 were increased to 1000ppm or 1 part per thousand, and the altitude is such that the overall pressure is 10% less than at the surface, Then the external partial of CO2 is 0.9x0.001 = 0.000,9 atmosphere and the partial pressure inside the drop of CO2 is only 0.000,89 atmosphere.

None of which changes anything I have actually sai.

I don't know, but bet that is less than the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean surface - If true then rain falling from high altitude probably lowers the partial pressure of the ocean of more significantly as the ocean is big and complex, the partial pressure in a puddle of fresh water.

I didn't mention rain - as I recall, a direct gas exchange occurs at the ocean surface.

The question is complex as larger drops will have more nearly the same pressure inside and outside, but again if at altitude where the overall pressure is 0.9 atmosphere they will bring that 10% lower partial pressure down too quickly (higher terminal fall speed) for them to come into equilibrium with the higher partial pressure near the surface.

Seems to me, you have in post 1023 the effect exactly backwards for both tiny and large drops falling from higher altitude. Is that correct?

I didn't mention rain.

PS. I think you work with environmental subjects, so may be able to measure the concentration of CO2 in some falling rain you collect - can you test my conclusion above experimentally?

Probably not - I don't have that kind of discretion, I have to be able to justify any expenditure based on the goals laid out in a financial plan each year combined with my job description.

 

[Billy T]

The subjective definition of "catastrophe" is just that, subjective. Thus you have to define what you want the term to mean before you can assign the odds of it occurring. ...

OK how about this definition: More dead in shorter period than WWII killed, which while uncertain, BBC gives by:

The Second World War (World War 2) lasted from 1939 to 1945. It was fought in Europe, in Russia, North Africa and in Asia. 60 million people died in World War 2. About 40 million were civilians.

60,000,000 / (1945 - 1939) = 10 million deaths reasonably clearly due to Global Warming in one year I define as a "global warming catastrophe" OR 1 million dying in one month due to global warming.

One could also define GW catastrophe economically as $100 million dollar loss in a ten day period due to global warming. I would be inclined to accept any of thee three as a "global warming catastrophe" but admit that nature often does much more damage - For example hurricane Katrina's total cost was at least 200 million. So when the loss is due to naturally occurring event, but made larger by Global warming, then not only must it be closely related to global warming, it must also set new record by a factor of 5 (or more). - I.e. at trillion dollar hurricane I would call a "global warming catastrophe."

 

[billvon]

OK how about this definition: More dead in shorter period than WWII killed, which while uncertain, BBC gives by: 60,000,000 / (1945 - 1939) = 10 million deaths reasonably clearly due to Global Warming in one year I define as a "global warming catastrophe"

So an increase in death rate of 20% due to climate change? Then I'd give you long odds; call it around 10%. You'd need an unlikely but possible lineup in major weather events.

One could also define GW catastrophe economically as $100 million dollar loss in a ten day period due to global warming.

Due purely to global warming? Very unlikely. An event that was made slightly worse by global warming costing $100 million over 10 days? Very likely; over 50%.

 

[iceaura]

Generally denial implies rejection without regard to evidence and debunking is usually used in reference to pseudoscience.

Rejection would be my preferred term

Good points, I agree - no more tone deaf use of "denial" by me.

And so the balance I was refering to was the balance between those processes, or, to put it another way, where the equilibrium point of the afforementioned dynamic equilibrium actually lies.

And the issue I was pointing to was that regardless of the equilibrium point, we suffer from the trend. Ocean acidification is bad for us, air carbonation is bad for us, and which combination or equilibrium is worst for us remains unclear.

Meanwhile, the question was of quick onset catastrophe from a (temporary, asymptotically limited) feedback accelerated methane/temperature burst.

Basically, there are three reasons for you finding a lack of reassurance in this paper (and other like it).
1. There is none to be had.
2. It exists but the tool is not yet available or has not yet been applied appropriately.
3. It exists, but not where you're expecting to find it.

You're concerned about the first instance, much of my point in the previous post centered around the second two.

My point was not that there was no chance of reassuring fact or argument hidden somewhere or potentially discoverable somehow. My point was that the reassurances being presented in the public discussion do not seem to be based on such fact or argument. When people who assert a likelihood of dramatic, Hollywood monster movie disaster are disparaged as harming the cause of sane response by exaggeration, I nod my head in recognition of the familiar - but I also expect an argument or reference to a mistake or misconception they are promoting, a contradiction of their alarmist scenario via evidence or argument somewhere in the mix.

The subjective definition of "catastrophe" is just that, subjective.

So pick one, given that the goal is reassurance. The rendering uninhabitable of some regions of the planet currently home to billions of people certainly qualifies, yes? How low are the odds of that happening, is the question then.

 

[Billy T]

So an increase in death rate of 20% due to climate change? Then I'd give you long odds; call it around 10%. You'd need an unlikely but possible lineup in major weather events.
Due purely to global warming? Very unlikely. An event that was made slightly worse by global warming costing $100 million over 10 days? Very likely; over 50%.

OK, I'll accept your definition: death rate increased by 20% due to climate change, but what period is to be used? I think one month would not be appropriate as Global warming death rates in a week would wash in the noise in one month. See non-human example below. The economic based definition I half way offered is too hard to apply - to pull out how much is just normal variation.

Photo caption was: "Cows stay cool in the shade of a half-mile-long feeding shed at the Mead Cattle Co. in August 2012. As many as several thousand Nebraska cattle have died statewide in 2013 as a result of high heat, humidity and calm winds." Here is more on this week long event:

A Nebraska Cattlemen official declined to talk numbers Thursday, but he compared the high feedlot cattle deaths that occurred in the state early last week to those of 2009:
A similar combination of heat, humidity and calm winds in June of that year pushed the death count as high as 4,000 in a casualty count by the Nebraska Farm Service Agency. “It's probably safe to say it's as severe as it was four years ago,” said Pete McClymont, “which was 2009, which was the last year we had losses like this.” The losses come at a time when beef prices are near historic highs. That means the loss of one 1,350-pound animal adds up to about $1,600. The loss of 4,000 would be in the range of $6.4 million.

Do you agree a 20% increase in the weekly human death rate for population of at least 10 million in some area, caused mainly by unusual weather conditions directly stressing human life (not a hurricane's flood etc.) is a "global warming catastrophe?

 

[Trippy]

And the issue I was pointing to was that regardless of the equilibrium point, we suffer from the trend. Ocean acidification is bad for us, air carbonation is bad for us, and which combination or equilibrium is worst for us remains unclear.

The difference is that the Ocean is our biggest carbon sink (it also happens to be the slowest to respond). I would suggest that the consequences of loosing that carbon sink are immeasurably worse than the consequences of the action of that IE Oceanic acidification. By the way, the predictions I have seen suggest that up to 840ppm of C02 the expectation is that the rate of gas absorption by the ocean will increase, and at 840 ppm CO2 the pH will have lowered to 7.76

Meanwhile, the question was of quick onset catastrophe from a (temporary, asymptotically limited) feedback accelerated methane/temperature burst.

I haven't really spoken to that - our conversation started because I reminded Billy T he had to consider the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2.

My point was not that there was no chance of reassuring fact or argument hidden somewhere or potentially discoverable somehow. My point was that the reassurances being presented in the public discussion do not seem to be based on such fact or argument. When people who assert a likelihood of dramatic, Hollywood monster movie disaster are disparaged as harming the cause of sane response by exaggeration, I nod my head in recognition of the familiar - but I also expect an argument or reference to a mistake or misconception they are promoting, a contradiction of their alarmist scenario via evidence or argument somewhere in the mix.

And my point was that there are three possible reasons why those references aren't neccessarily being presented. I do my best to address what I consider to be misconceptions or misperceptions, however, sometimes it's not that simple. There's a fallacy to that effect, I forget the name of it. Sometimes the evidence might be spread across dozens of papers and is easier to communicate then it is to demonstrate.

 

[Billy T]

The difference is that the Ocean is our biggest carbon sink (it also happens to be the slowest to respond). ...

A large part of that slow response is that most of the ocean, the deeper than 500M parts, is not doing much to help current absorption.* So while top layers are soaking up CO2, they are also sending it back into the air more than into the deep ocean:

... More than 50 years ago, the late Scripps Director Roger Revelle defined a term now known as the Revelle Factor to describe this aspect of the relationship between the changing composition of seawater and the overlying atmosphere.

Dickson noted there are other factors at play. 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. It’s as if the pump removing CO2 from the atmosphere into the surface water and then on deeper into the ocean had slowed down.

This slowing of ocean mixing may have another effect. It stifles the transport of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate from deeper waters to the surface, which diminishes the growth of phytoplankton, which store carbon in their tissue as a product of photosynthesis. The sinking tissue takes the carbon with it to the deep ocean when the organisms die. It’s another way that carbon can be removed from the ocean surface.

All this adds up to what scientists expect to be a gradual slowing of ocean CO2 uptake if human fossil fuel use continues to accelerate. As a smaller fraction of the excess CO2 goes into the oceans, a larger fraction may remain in the atmosphere, and the chemical changes in seawater that can affect organisms will continue to grow in lockstep with the relentless increases in the excess CO2 in the overlying atmosphere caused by human activities.

A major factor governing the rate of uptake of CO2 by the oceans is pace at which global CO2 emissions are increasing over time. Over the past decades, fossil emissions (measured as tons of carbon) have grown at 2 to 4 percent annually, from around 2 billion tons in 1950 to 9 billion tons today. The oceans as a whole have a large capacity for absorbing CO2, but ocean mixing is too slow to have spread this additional CO2 deep into the ocean.

When it comes to experts in this area, Scripts is "second to none."

One easy and cheaper than current practice way to fight global warming is burial at sea. - Make cremation and even land burial illegal.

* If the gulf stream dies - ie the "Thermal-Haline "piston" ceases to push oxygen rich water along the ocean bottom, some all the way into the Indian Ocean, it turns anaerobic down there and up comes more organic decay CH4 - This may be powerful positive feed back - I have not seen mentioned before, but bet someone has paper on this effect. Perhaps burial at sea is NOT a good idea at all.