https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/08/the-southern-ocean-absorbs-more-heat-than-any-other-ocean-on-earth-and-the-impacts-will-be-felt-for-generations

The Southern Ocean absorbs more heat than any other ocean on Earth and the impacts will be felt for generations
This article is more than 1 year oldMaurice Huguenin, Matthew England and Ryan Holmes for the Conversation
This ocean warming controls the rate of climate change, and the effects such as sea level rise are irreversible on human timescales

Over the last 50 years, the oceans have been working in overdrive to slow global warming, absorbing about 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions, and more than 90% of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere.

But as our research published today in Nature Communications has found, some oceans work harder than others.

We used a computational global ocean circulation model to examine exactly how ocean warming has played out over the last 50 years. And we found the Southern Ocean has dominated the global absorption of heat. In fact, Southern Ocean heat uptake accounts for almost all the planet’s ocean warming, thereby controlling the rate of climate change.

This Southern Ocean warming and its associated impacts are effectively irreversible on human timescales, because it takes millennia for heat trapped deep in the ocean to be released back into the atmosphere.

This means changes happening now will be felt for generations to come – and those changes are only set to get worse, unless we can stop carbon dioxide emissions and achieve net zero.

It’s important yet difficult to measure ocean heating
Ocean warming buffers the worst impacts of climate change, but it’s not without cost. Sea levels are rising because heat causes water to expand and ice to melt. Marine ecosystems are experiencing unprecedented heat stress, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is changing.

Yet, we still don’t know enough about exactly when, where and how ocean warming occurs. This is because of three factors.

First, temperature changes at the ocean surface and in the atmosphere just above track each other closely. This makes it difficult to know exactly where excess heat is entering the ocean.

Second, we don’t have measurements tracking temperatures over all of the ocean. In particular, we have very sparse observations in the deep ocean, in remote locations around Antarctica and under sea ice.

Last, the observations we do have don’t go back very far in time. Reliable data from deeper than 700 metres depth is virtually nonexistent prior to the 1990s, apart from observations along specific research cruise tracks.

Our modelling approach
To work out the intricacies of how ocean warming has played out, we first ran an ocean model with atmospheric conditions perpetually stuck in the 1960s, prior to any significant human-caused climate change.

Then, we separately allowed each ocean basin to move forward in time and experience climate change, while all other basins were held back to experience the climate of the 1960s.

We separated out the effects of atmospheric warming from surface wind-driven changes to see how much each factor contributes to the observed ocean warming.

Why the collapse of an Atlantic ocean current could mean La Niña becomes the norm
Read more
By taking this modelling approach, we could isolate that the Southern Ocean is the most important absorber of this heat, despite only covering about 15% of the total ocean’s surface area.

In fact, the Southern Ocean alone could account for virtually all global ocean heat uptake, with the Pacific and Atlantic basins losing any heat gained back into the atmosphere.

One significant ecological impact of strong Southern Ocean warming is on Antarctic krill. When ocean warming occurs beyond temperatures they can tolerate, the krill’s habitat contracts and they move even farther south to cooler waters.

As krill is a key component of the food web, this will also change the distribution and population of larger predators, such as commercially viable tooth and ice fish. It will also further increase stress for penguins and whales already under threat today.

So why is the Southern Ocean absorbing so much heat?

This largely comes down to the geographic setup of the region, with strong westerly winds surrounding Antarctica exerting their influence over an ocean that’s uninterrupted by land masses.

This means the Southern Ocean winds blow over a vast distance, continuously bringing masses of cold water to the surface. The cold water is pushed northward, readily absorbing vast quantities of heat from the warmer atmosphere, before the excess heat is pumped into the ocean’s interior around 45-55°S (a latitude band just south of Tasmania, New Zealand and the southern regions of South America).

This warming uptake is facilitated by both the warmer atmosphere caused by our greenhouse gas emissions, as well as wind-driven circulation which is important for getting heat into the ocean interior.

And when we combine the warming and wind effects only over the Southern Ocean, with the remaining oceans held back to the climate of the 1960s, we can explain almost all of the global ocean heat uptake.

But that’s not to say the other ocean basins aren’t warming. They are, it’s just that the heat they gain locally from the atmosphere cannot account for this warming. Instead, the massive heat uptake in the Southern Ocean is what has driven changes in total ocean heat content worldwide over the past half century.

While this discovery sheds new light on the Southern Ocean as a key driver of global ocean warming, we still have a lot to learn, particularly about ocean warming beyond the 50 years we highlight in our study. All future projections, including even the most optimistic scenarios, predict an even warmer ocean in future.

And if the Southern Ocean continues to account for the vast majority of ocean heat uptake until 2100, we might see its heat content increase by as much as seven times more than what we have already seen up to today.

This will have enormous impacts around the globe, such as further disturbances to the Southern Ocean food web, rapid melting of Antarctic ice shelves and changes in the ocean conveyor belt.

To capture all of these changes, it’s vital we continue and expand our observations taken in the Southern Ocean.

One of the most important new data streams will be new ocean floats that can measure deeper ocean temperatures, as well as small temperature sensors on elephant seals, which give us essential data of oceanic conditions in winter under Antarctic sea ice.

Even more important is the recognition that the less carbon dioxide we emit, the less ocean change we will lock in. This will ultimately limit the disruption of livelihoods for the billions of people living near the coast worldwide.

This article was originally published in the Conversation. Maurice Huguenin is a PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales Sydney. Prof Matthew England is the deputy director of the ARC Australian centre for excellence in Antarctic science at UNSW Sydney. Dr Ryan Holmes is a research fellow at the University of Sydney.

monkey skipper said:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/08/the-southern-ocean-absorbs-more-heat-than-any-other-ocean-on-earth-and-the-impacts-will-be-felt-for-generations

The Southern Ocean absorbs more heat than any other ocean on Earth and the impacts will be felt for generations
This article is more than 1 year oldMaurice Huguenin, Matthew England and Ryan Holmes for the Conversation
This ocean warming controls the rate of climate change, and the effects such as sea level rise are irreversible on human timescales

Over the last 50 years, the oceans have been working in overdrive to slow global warming, absorbing about 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions, and more than 90% of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere.

But as our research published today in Nature Communications has found, some oceans work harder than others.

We used a computational global ocean circulation model to examine exactly how ocean warming has played out over the last 50 years. And we found the Southern Ocean has dominated the global absorption of heat. In fact, Southern Ocean heat uptake accounts for almost all the planet’s ocean warming, thereby controlling the rate of climate change.

This Southern Ocean warming and its associated impacts are effectively irreversible on human timescales, because it takes millennia for heat trapped deep in the ocean to be released back into the atmosphere.

This means changes happening now will be felt for generations to come – and those changes are only set to get worse, unless we can stop carbon dioxide emissions and achieve net zero.

It’s important yet difficult to measure ocean heating
Ocean warming buffers the worst impacts of climate change, but it’s not without cost. Sea levels are rising because heat causes water to expand and ice to melt. Marine ecosystems are experiencing unprecedented heat stress, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is changing.

Yet, we still don’t know enough about exactly when, where and how ocean warming occurs. This is because of three factors.

First, temperature changes at the ocean surface and in the atmosphere just above track each other closely. This makes it difficult to know exactly where excess heat is entering the ocean.

Second, we don’t have measurements tracking temperatures over all of the ocean. In particular, we have very sparse observations in the deep ocean, in remote locations around Antarctica and under sea ice.

Last, the observations we do have don’t go back very far in time. Reliable data from deeper than 700 metres depth is virtually nonexistent prior to the 1990s, apart from observations along specific research cruise tracks.

Our modelling approach
To work out the intricacies of how ocean warming has played out, we first ran an ocean model with atmospheric conditions perpetually stuck in the 1960s, prior to any significant human-caused climate change.

Then, we separately allowed each ocean basin to move forward in time and experience climate change, while all other basins were held back to experience the climate of the 1960s.

We separated out the effects of atmospheric warming from surface wind-driven changes to see how much each factor contributes to the observed ocean warming.

Why the collapse of an Atlantic ocean current could mean La Niña becomes the norm
Read more
By taking this modelling approach, we could isolate that the Southern Ocean is the most important absorber of this heat, despite only covering about 15% of the total ocean’s surface area.

In fact, the Southern Ocean alone could account for virtually all global ocean heat uptake, with the Pacific and Atlantic basins losing any heat gained back into the atmosphere.

One significant ecological impact of strong Southern Ocean warming is on Antarctic krill. When ocean warming occurs beyond temperatures they can tolerate, the krill’s habitat contracts and they move even farther south to cooler waters.

As krill is a key component of the food web, this will also change the distribution and population of larger predators, such as commercially viable tooth and ice fish. It will also further increase stress for penguins and whales already under threat today.

So why is the Southern Ocean absorbing so much heat?

This largely comes down to the geographic setup of the region, with strong westerly winds surrounding Antarctica exerting their influence over an ocean that’s uninterrupted by land masses.

This means the Southern Ocean winds blow over a vast distance, continuously bringing masses of cold water to the surface. The cold water is pushed northward, readily absorbing vast quantities of heat from the warmer atmosphere, before the excess heat is pumped into the ocean’s interior around 45-55°S (a latitude band just south of Tasmania, New Zealand and the southern regions of South America).

This warming uptake is facilitated by both the warmer atmosphere caused by our greenhouse gas emissions, as well as wind-driven circulation which is important for getting heat into the ocean interior.

And when we combine the warming and wind effects only over the Southern Ocean, with the remaining oceans held back to the climate of the 1960s, we can explain almost all of the global ocean heat uptake.

But that’s not to say the other ocean basins aren’t warming. They are, it’s just that the heat they gain locally from the atmosphere cannot account for this warming. Instead, the massive heat uptake in the Southern Ocean is what has driven changes in total ocean heat content worldwide over the past half century.

While this discovery sheds new light on the Southern Ocean as a key driver of global ocean warming, we still have a lot to learn, particularly about ocean warming beyond the 50 years we highlight in our study. All future projections, including even the most optimistic scenarios, predict an even warmer ocean in future.

And if the Southern Ocean continues to account for the vast majority of ocean heat uptake until 2100, we might see its heat content increase by as much as seven times more than what we have already seen up to today.

This will have enormous impacts around the globe, such as further disturbances to the Southern Ocean food web, rapid melting of Antarctic ice shelves and changes in the ocean conveyor belt.

To capture all of these changes, it’s vital we continue and expand our observations taken in the Southern Ocean.

One of the most important new data streams will be new ocean floats that can measure deeper ocean temperatures, as well as small temperature sensors on elephant seals, which give us essential data of oceanic conditions in winter under Antarctic sea ice.

Even more important is the recognition that the less carbon dioxide we emit, the less ocean change we will lock in. This will ultimately limit the disruption of livelihoods for the billions of people living near the coast worldwide.

This article was originally published in the Conversation. Maurice Huguenin is a PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales Sydney. Prof Matthew England is the deputy director of the ARC Australian centre for excellence in Antarctic science at UNSW Sydney. Dr Ryan Holmes is a research fellow at the University of Sydney.

We need more of this type of presentation along with irreversible outcomes that will last for thousands of years. The continued disinformation that all we need to do to reach zero co2 emissions by 2050 to solve the problem is not realistic.

>>But what does “net zero” actually mean? And importantly, what can be done to put the planet’s emissions on a safe course?

Put simply, the term net zero applies to a situation where global greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are in balance with emissions reductions. At net zero, carbon dioxide emissions are still generated, but an equal amount of carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere as is released into it, resulting in zero increase in net emissions.<<

All well and good for us to eventually reduce our co2 emissions, but what about all the co2 and methane emissions now being emitted by natural causes, like the melting of the permafrost, just stopping our emissions will have zero effect for thousands of years, meanwhile co2 emission will continue to increase; in other words we have already reached some tipping points, which unless we can remove vastly more emissions than our zero emissions target, we are still heading for increased global warming.

Heat already absorbed by the oceans will not cool, but will continue to increase for thousands of years and again, unless we can remove trillions upon trillions of tons of co2 from the atmosphere it is just going to get worse. And just for consideration, what do we do with trillions and trillions of tons of it? It is as big, if not a bigger problem than the storage of radioactive waste.

Humans are not going to come even close to solving the predicament we find ourselves, unless we admit the truth and start to address the real problems; rather than playing politics, we need to release ourselves from the pull of the mighty dollar and actually do something that might help rather than this silly attitude that everything will work out with minimal effort from ourselves in a few years time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

wookiemeister said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Presume you did not read the article yourself, because in the third paragraph it states, “The cost of distributing iron over large ocean areas is large compared with the expected value of carbon credits. Research in the early 2020s suggested that it could only permanently sequester a small amount of carbon.”

The remainder of the article covers the many reasons why iron fertilization is not much of a solution in the sequestering of co2. The environmental position is particularly critical stating, “Critics are concerned that fertilization will create harmful algal blooms (HAB) as many toxic algae are often favored when iron is deposited into the marine ecosystem. A 2010 study of iron fertilization in an oceanic high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll environment, however, found that fertilized Pseudo-nitzschia diatom spp., which are generally nontoxic in the open ocean, began producing toxic levels of domoic acid. Even short-lived blooms containing such toxins could have detrimental effects on marine food webs. Most species of phytoplankton are harmless or beneficial, given that they constitute the base of the marine food chain. Fertilization increases phytoplankton only in the open oceans (far from shore) where iron deficiency is substantial. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect. Further, it has been shown that there are often higher mineralization rates with iron fertilization, leading to a turn over in the plankton masses that are produced. This results in no beneficial effects and actually causes an increase in CO2.

Finally, a 2010 study showed that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas which, the authors argue, raises “serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations”. Nitrogen released by cetaceans and iron chelate are a significant benefit to the marine food chain in addition to sequestering carbon for long periods of time.”

> the oceans have been working in overdrive to slow global warming, absorbing about 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions

This is the specific point where I found an error in IPCC calculations.

The IPCC uses atmospheric oxygen concentration changes to distinguish between CO2 absorbed by plants and CO2 absorbed by the ocean. Plants absorb CO2 and give out O2. Oceans absorb CO2 without giving out O2. So the difference between CO2 absorption and O2 emission is the amount of CO2 absorption by the oceans.

Which is the correct way to do it, but they made an elementary algebra mistake. Using change in O2 divided by atmospheric O2, instead of change in O2 divided by atmospheric O2 + N2.

mollwollfumble said:

> the oceans have been working in overdrive to slow global warming, absorbing about 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions

This is the specific point where I found an error in IPCC calculations.

The IPCC uses atmospheric oxygen concentration changes to distinguish between CO2 absorbed by plants and CO2 absorbed by the ocean. Plants absorb CO2 and give out O2. Oceans absorb CO2 without giving out O2. So the difference between CO2 absorption and O2 emission is the amount of CO2 absorption by the oceans.

Which is the correct way to do it, but they made an elementary algebra mistake. Using change in O2 divided by atmospheric O2, instead of change in O2 divided by atmospheric O2 + N2.

Plankton are microscopic organisms that represent the base of the ocean food chain. More important for us, plankton function as part of a biological pump. As atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, the phytoplankton use the CO2 and sunlight to photosynthesize. In the process, they produce oxygen and help to remove about one-third of the atmospheric CO2. The CO2 is absorbed into the phytoplankton shells, and ultimately sinks to the bottom of the sea as the plankton die off. The planet’s health depends on regular plankton “blooms,” in which enormous aggregations of plankton spread for miles over the world’s oceans.

https://www.scienceforthepublic.org/earth/how-plankton-blooms-absorb-co2

The ocean absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is released in the atmosphere1. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, more is dissolved in the surface water, which may then mix down or sink into the deep sea where the absorbed CO2 can stay locked up for hundreds of years2. This process occurs because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels and changing land use1.

It also makes the ocean waters more acid that is not good for calcium carbonate shell production.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/oceans-absorb-carbon-seas-climate-change-environment-water-co2/

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Presume you did not read the article yourself, because in the third paragraph it states, “The cost of distributing iron over large ocean areas is large compared with the expected value of carbon credits. Research in the early 2020s suggested that it could only permanently sequester a small amount of carbon.”

The remainder of the article covers the many reasons why iron fertilization is not much of a solution in the sequestering of co2. The environmental position is particularly critical stating, “Critics are concerned that fertilization will create harmful algal blooms (HAB) as many toxic algae are often favored when iron is deposited into the marine ecosystem. A 2010 study of iron fertilization in an oceanic high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll environment, however, found that fertilized Pseudo-nitzschia diatom spp., which are generally nontoxic in the open ocean, began producing toxic levels of domoic acid. Even short-lived blooms containing such toxins could have detrimental effects on marine food webs. Most species of phytoplankton are harmless or beneficial, given that they constitute the base of the marine food chain. Fertilization increases phytoplankton only in the open oceans (far from shore) where iron deficiency is substantial. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect. Further, it has been shown that there are often higher mineralization rates with iron fertilization, leading to a turn over in the plankton masses that are produced. This results in no beneficial effects and actually causes an increase in CO2.

Finally, a 2010 study showed that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas which, the authors argue, raises “serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations”. Nitrogen released by cetaceans and iron chelate are a significant benefit to the marine food chain in addition to sequestering carbon for long periods of time.”

So if we stopped fluffing up the surface of Australia then less iron would be deposited?

mollwollfumble said:

> the oceans have been working in overdrive to slow global warming, absorbing about 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions

This is the specific point where I found an error in IPCC calculations.

The IPCC uses atmospheric oxygen concentration changes to distinguish between CO2 absorbed by plants and CO2 absorbed by the ocean. Plants absorb CO2 and give out O2. Oceans absorb CO2 without giving out O2. So the difference between CO2 absorption and O2 emission is the amount of CO2 absorption by the oceans.

Which is the correct way to do it, but they made an elementary algebra mistake. Using change in O2 divided by atmospheric O2, instead of change in O2 divided by atmospheric O2 + N2.

Did you tell them?

https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2023/11/ocean-warming-is-accelerating—and-hotspots-reveal-which-areas-a

a slightly more recent article going down the same path it seems

Published on the 02 Nov 2023 by UNSW Media

The Southern Ocean saw the largest increase in heat storage over the past two decades. Photo: Getty Images.

Ocean warming has accelerated dramatically since the 1990s, nearly doubling during 2010–2020 relative to 1990–2000, according to new UNSW Sydney-led research.

The study, published this week in Nature Communications, also shows some areas of the ocean are doing more of the work in heat uptake or absorption, which has implications for our understanding of sea-level rise and climate impacts.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activity traps heat within the climate system, warming air, the land surface, the oceans, and melting polar ice. Oceans do by far the most work, absorbing more than 90 per cent of the excess human-generated heat accumulated in the Earth’s climate system, moderating atmospheric temperature rises.

While ocean warming helps slow the pace of climate change, it is not without cost, says Scientia Professor Matthew England, co-author of the study from the UNSW Centre for Marine Science and Innovation.

“The world ocean, in 2023, is now the hottest ever recorded, and sea levels are rising because heat causes water to expand and ice to melt,” says Prof. England. “Ecosystems are also experiencing unprecedented heat stress, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are changing rapidly, and the costs are enormous.”

“Right now, the ocean is warming at a dramatically accelerating rate, nearly doubling during the 2010s relative to the 1990s,” says Dr Zhi Li, lead author of the study from the UNSW Centre for Marine Science and Innovation. “What we wanted to do in this study was to figure out exactly where this ocean heat uptake has been occurring.”

Hotspots of ocean heat uptake
For the study, the researchers evaluated all available observations of ocean warming activity spanning modern Argo float data – an international ocean research program that collects information using robotic instruments – to those taken in the 1950s when only sparse measurements were made from ship-borne devices. They then analysed the heat uptake across water masses and quantified each water mass’s role in ocean heat content change.

They found oceanic warming has been pervasive worldwide, spreading from the surface to the deep-sea regions known as the abyssal layers and spanning each basin from the tropics to the polar regions. However, the distribution of ocean warming by region was far from uniform.

The Southern Ocean saw the largest increase in heat storage over the past two decades, holding almost the same excess anthropogenic heat as the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean combined. This includes two large masses of water in the Southern Ocean that combine to fill a depth range of 300 – 1500 metres.

Read more: Ocean warming and sea-level rise are on a fast track

“Melting ice caps, extreme weather, and marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, are all highly sensitive to ocean temperature changes,” says Dr Sjoerd Groeskamp, co-author of the study from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. “It is critical we understand exactly how and where the ocean warms – both now and into the future.”

Exactly how heat uptake plays out over the coming decades and beyond remains highly uncertain. For example, if the oceans develop a reduced capacity to absorb heat, it will have profound implications for the rate of future climate change.

The scientists say their findings highlight an urgent need to increase monitoring of the global oceans, especially in remote locations like the polar oceans, as well as key regions of the subtropical and coastal seas to better understand and predict sea-level rise and impacts on marine ecosystems.

“Without Argo floats, for example, this study would not have been possible,” says Prof. England.

The team also call for more international action from big-emitting nations to meet their net zero carbon targets as soon as possible and limit the damage from uncontrolled ocean warming.

“Without any action, these net zero pledges are just meaningless,” says Dr Groeskamp.

monkey skipper said:

https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2023/11/ocean-warming-is-accelerating—and-hotspots-reveal-which-areas-a

a slightly more recent article going down the same path it seems

Published on the 02 Nov 2023 by UNSW Media

The Southern Ocean saw the largest increase in heat storage over the past two decades. Photo: Getty Images.

Ocean warming has accelerated dramatically since the 1990s, nearly doubling during 2010–2020 relative to 1990–2000, according to new UNSW Sydney-led research.

The study, published this week in Nature Communications, also shows some areas of the ocean are doing more of the work in heat uptake or absorption, which has implications for our understanding of sea-level rise and climate impacts.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activity traps heat within the climate system, warming air, the land surface, the oceans, and melting polar ice. Oceans do by far the most work, absorbing more than 90 per cent of the excess human-generated heat accumulated in the Earth’s climate system, moderating atmospheric temperature rises.

While ocean warming helps slow the pace of climate change, it is not without cost, says Scientia Professor Matthew England, co-author of the study from the UNSW Centre for Marine Science and Innovation.

“The world ocean, in 2023, is now the hottest ever recorded, and sea levels are rising because heat causes water to expand and ice to melt,” says Prof. England. “Ecosystems are also experiencing unprecedented heat stress, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are changing rapidly, and the costs are enormous.”

“Right now, the ocean is warming at a dramatically accelerating rate, nearly doubling during the 2010s relative to the 1990s,” says Dr Zhi Li, lead author of the study from the UNSW Centre for Marine Science and Innovation. “What we wanted to do in this study was to figure out exactly where this ocean heat uptake has been occurring.”

Hotspots of ocean heat uptake
For the study, the researchers evaluated all available observations of ocean warming activity spanning modern Argo float data – an international ocean research program that collects information using robotic instruments – to those taken in the 1950s when only sparse measurements were made from ship-borne devices. They then analysed the heat uptake across water masses and quantified each water mass’s role in ocean heat content change.

They found oceanic warming has been pervasive worldwide, spreading from the surface to the deep-sea regions known as the abyssal layers and spanning each basin from the tropics to the polar regions. However, the distribution of ocean warming by region was far from uniform.

The Southern Ocean saw the largest increase in heat storage over the past two decades, holding almost the same excess anthropogenic heat as the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean combined. This includes two large masses of water in the Southern Ocean that combine to fill a depth range of 300 – 1500 metres.

Read more: Ocean warming and sea-level rise are on a fast track

“Melting ice caps, extreme weather, and marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, are all highly sensitive to ocean temperature changes,” says Dr Sjoerd Groeskamp, co-author of the study from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. “It is critical we understand exactly how and where the ocean warms – both now and into the future.”

Exactly how heat uptake plays out over the coming decades and beyond remains highly uncertain. For example, if the oceans develop a reduced capacity to absorb heat, it will have profound implications for the rate of future climate change.

The scientists say their findings highlight an urgent need to increase monitoring of the global oceans, especially in remote locations like the polar oceans, as well as key regions of the subtropical and coastal seas to better understand and predict sea-level rise and impacts on marine ecosystems.

“Without Argo floats, for example, this study would not have been possible,” says Prof. England.

The team also call for more international action from big-emitting nations to meet their net zero carbon targets as soon as possible and limit the damage from uncontrolled ocean warming.

“Without any action, these net zero pledges are just meaningless,” says Dr Groeskamp.

>>“Without any action, these net zero pledges are just meaningless,” says Dr Groeskamp.<<

It says it all! Behind all this procrastination is greed, growth and money. If we want any chance to save ourselves, we must change our attitude toward life and prosperity, but it’s not looking good.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Presume you did not read the article yourself, because in the third paragraph it states, “The cost of distributing iron over large ocean areas is large compared with the expected value of carbon credits. Research in the early 2020s suggested that it could only permanently sequester a small amount of carbon.”

The remainder of the article covers the many reasons why iron fertilization is not much of a solution in the sequestering of co2. The environmental position is particularly critical stating, “Critics are concerned that fertilization will create harmful algal blooms (HAB) as many toxic algae are often favored when iron is deposited into the marine ecosystem. A 2010 study of iron fertilization in an oceanic high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll environment, however, found that fertilized Pseudo-nitzschia diatom spp., which are generally nontoxic in the open ocean, began producing toxic levels of domoic acid. Even short-lived blooms containing such toxins could have detrimental effects on marine food webs. Most species of phytoplankton are harmless or beneficial, given that they constitute the base of the marine food chain. Fertilization increases phytoplankton only in the open oceans (far from shore) where iron deficiency is substantial. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect. Further, it has been shown that there are often higher mineralization rates with iron fertilization, leading to a turn over in the plankton masses that are produced. This results in no beneficial effects and actually causes an increase in CO2.

Finally, a 2010 study showed that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas which, the authors argue, raises “serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations”. Nitrogen released by cetaceans and iron chelate are a significant benefit to the marine food chain in addition to sequestering carbon for long periods of time.”

Perform the action in a controlled environment, make big tanks and grow things there. Use the aquaculture approach.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Presume you did not read the article yourself, because in the third paragraph it states, “The cost of distributing iron over large ocean areas is large compared with the expected value of carbon credits. Research in the early 2020s suggested that it could only permanently sequester a small amount of carbon.”

The remainder of the article covers the many reasons why iron fertilization is not much of a solution in the sequestering of co2. The environmental position is particularly critical stating, “Critics are concerned that fertilization will create harmful algal blooms (HAB) as many toxic algae are often favored when iron is deposited into the marine ecosystem. A 2010 study of iron fertilization in an oceanic high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll environment, however, found that fertilized Pseudo-nitzschia diatom spp., which are generally nontoxic in the open ocean, began producing toxic levels of domoic acid. Even short-lived blooms containing such toxins could have detrimental effects on marine food webs. Most species of phytoplankton are harmless or beneficial, given that they constitute the base of the marine food chain. Fertilization increases phytoplankton only in the open oceans (far from shore) where iron deficiency is substantial. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect. Further, it has been shown that there are often higher mineralization rates with iron fertilization, leading to a turn over in the plankton masses that are produced. This results in no beneficial effects and actually causes an increase in CO2.

Finally, a 2010 study showed that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas which, the authors argue, raises “serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations”. Nitrogen released by cetaceans and iron chelate are a significant benefit to the marine food chain in addition to sequestering carbon for long periods of time.”

Perform the action in a controlled environment, make big tanks and grow things there. Use the aquaculture approach.

To be honest I’m more than suspicious when I start seeing lots of hypothesis about why it won’t work

Its why the conspiracists say the global warming hoax is there to collapse the west. Whilst Western ideologues lay waste to their economies growing economies use fossil fuel like crazy. It’s a theory attractive to “smart” people to fool them.

No one here can explain why Australia shuts down its use of fossil fuels whilst China builds MORE coal fired power stations every year – without a whimper of critique.

Its like why Australia buys a 500 billion submarine system ready after 20 years to fight China whilst hundreds of Chinese march into the country

The brains of the west got eaten out, even simple logic is repelled.

wookiemeister said:

Its like why Australia buys a 500 billion submarine system ready after 20 years to fight China whilst hundreds of thousands of Chinese march into the country

The brains of the west got eaten out, even simple logic is repelled.

In twenty years you might have a Chinese population of say 20 million at this rate. It’s exponential.

In twenty years we’ll be gone, not from global warming

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Presume you did not read the article yourself, because in the third paragraph it states, “The cost of distributing iron over large ocean areas is large compared with the expected value of carbon credits. Research in the early 2020s suggested that it could only permanently sequester a small amount of carbon.”

The remainder of the article covers the many reasons why iron fertilization is not much of a solution in the sequestering of co2. The environmental position is particularly critical stating, “Critics are concerned that fertilization will create harmful algal blooms (HAB) as many toxic algae are often favored when iron is deposited into the marine ecosystem. A 2010 study of iron fertilization in an oceanic high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll environment, however, found that fertilized Pseudo-nitzschia diatom spp., which are generally nontoxic in the open ocean, began producing toxic levels of domoic acid. Even short-lived blooms containing such toxins could have detrimental effects on marine food webs. Most species of phytoplankton are harmless or beneficial, given that they constitute the base of the marine food chain. Fertilization increases phytoplankton only in the open oceans (far from shore) where iron deficiency is substantial. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect. Further, it has been shown that there are often higher mineralization rates with iron fertilization, leading to a turn over in the plankton masses that are produced. This results in no beneficial effects and actually causes an increase in CO2.

Finally, a 2010 study showed that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas which, the authors argue, raises “serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations”. Nitrogen released by cetaceans and iron chelate are a significant benefit to the marine food chain in addition to sequestering carbon for long periods of time.”

Perform the action in a controlled environment, make big tanks and grow things there. Use the aquaculture approach.

Why is it people who think they know everything, assume researchers have not thought of, or conducted the investigations like you propose? But no, you think your thoughts are so original and brilliant that these highly educated professionals are cretins by comparison.

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

Presume you did not read the article yourself, because in the third paragraph it states, “The cost of distributing iron over large ocean areas is large compared with the expected value of carbon credits. Research in the early 2020s suggested that it could only permanently sequester a small amount of carbon.”

The remainder of the article covers the many reasons why iron fertilization is not much of a solution in the sequestering of co2. The environmental position is particularly critical stating, “Critics are concerned that fertilization will create harmful algal blooms (HAB) as many toxic algae are often favored when iron is deposited into the marine ecosystem. A 2010 study of iron fertilization in an oceanic high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll environment, however, found that fertilized Pseudo-nitzschia diatom spp., which are generally nontoxic in the open ocean, began producing toxic levels of domoic acid. Even short-lived blooms containing such toxins could have detrimental effects on marine food webs. Most species of phytoplankton are harmless or beneficial, given that they constitute the base of the marine food chain. Fertilization increases phytoplankton only in the open oceans (far from shore) where iron deficiency is substantial. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect. Further, it has been shown that there are often higher mineralization rates with iron fertilization, leading to a turn over in the plankton masses that are produced. This results in no beneficial effects and actually causes an increase in CO2.

Finally, a 2010 study showed that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas which, the authors argue, raises “serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations”. Nitrogen released by cetaceans and iron chelate are a significant benefit to the marine food chain in addition to sequestering carbon for long periods of time.”

Perform the action in a controlled environment, make big tanks and grow things there. Use the aquaculture approach.

To be honest I’m more than suspicious when I start seeing lots of hypothesis about why it won’t work

Its why the conspiracists say the global warming hoax is there to collapse the west. Whilst Western ideologues lay waste to their economies growing economies use fossil fuel like crazy. It’s a theory attractive to “smart” people to fool them.

No one here can explain why Australia shuts down its use of fossil fuels whilst China builds MORE coal fired power stations every year – without a whimper of critique.

Don’t forget wookie, it was YOU who provided the link to the above research as a solution to the world’s problems. It was an interesting study with a considerable amount of information, and like good scientific research it discovered that the original hypothesis did not stack up to expectations and reported the results. Going on your reaction I presume you would go ahead regardless and possibly cause a major environmental disaster.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

Presume you did not read the article yourself, because in the third paragraph it states, “The cost of distributing iron over large ocean areas is large compared with the expected value of carbon credits. Research in the early 2020s suggested that it could only permanently sequester a small amount of carbon.”

The remainder of the article covers the many reasons why iron fertilization is not much of a solution in the sequestering of co2. The environmental position is particularly critical stating, “Critics are concerned that fertilization will create harmful algal blooms (HAB) as many toxic algae are often favored when iron is deposited into the marine ecosystem. A 2010 study of iron fertilization in an oceanic high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll environment, however, found that fertilized Pseudo-nitzschia diatom spp., which are generally nontoxic in the open ocean, began producing toxic levels of domoic acid. Even short-lived blooms containing such toxins could have detrimental effects on marine food webs. Most species of phytoplankton are harmless or beneficial, given that they constitute the base of the marine food chain. Fertilization increases phytoplankton only in the open oceans (far from shore) where iron deficiency is substantial. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect. Further, it has been shown that there are often higher mineralization rates with iron fertilization, leading to a turn over in the plankton masses that are produced. This results in no beneficial effects and actually causes an increase in CO2.

Finally, a 2010 study showed that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas which, the authors argue, raises “serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations”. Nitrogen released by cetaceans and iron chelate are a significant benefit to the marine food chain in addition to sequestering carbon for long periods of time.”

Perform the action in a controlled environment, make big tanks and grow things there. Use the aquaculture approach.

Why is it people who think they know everything, assume researchers have not thought of, or conducted the investigations like you propose? But no, you think your thoughts are so original and brilliant that these highly educated professionals are cretins by comparison.

These brilliant researchers , lie.

These brilliant professionals always seem to fuck everything up

They don’t have adult supervision

If Australia was so concerned with greenhouse gas emissions – just stop digging up coal , oil and gas and stop selling it.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

Perform the action in a controlled environment, make big tanks and grow things there. Use the aquaculture approach.

To be honest I’m more than suspicious when I start seeing lots of hypothesis about why it won’t work

Its why the conspiracists say the global warming hoax is there to collapse the west. Whilst Western ideologues lay waste to their economies growing economies use fossil fuel like crazy. It’s a theory attractive to “smart” people to fool them.

No one here can explain why Australia shuts down its use of fossil fuels whilst China builds MORE coal fired power stations every year – without a whimper of critique.

Don’t forget wookie, it was YOU who provided the link to the above research as a solution to the world’s problems. It was an interesting study with a considerable amount of information, and like good scientific research it discovered that the original hypothesis did not stack up to expectations and reported the results. Going on your reaction I presume you would go ahead regardless and possibly cause a major environmental disaster.

You could always do it the easy way and just plant trees – but no doubt there will be another study from brilliant researchers that wouldn’t work either.

I’ve been howled at here for years mentioning that white paint could cool the planet and its been rejected. Some architect visited a housing estate in Sydney and measured the temperatures directly and pointed out all these dark roofs and no shading made the suburb on one day the hottest place on the planet. To my knowledge not one thing has been done about it – too hard. You’d think people would grow tired of living in a furnace, apparently not.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Perform the action in a controlled environment, make big tanks and grow things there. Use the aquaculture approach.

Why is it people who think they know everything, assume researchers have not thought of, or conducted the investigations like you propose? But no, you think your thoughts are so original and brilliant that these highly educated professionals are cretins by comparison.

These brilliant researchers , lie.

These brilliant professionals always seem to fuck everything up

They don’t have adult supervision

If Australia was so concerned with greenhouse gas emissions – just stop digging up coal , oil and gas and stop selling it.

So speaketh the Holiday Forum fool.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

To be honest I’m more than suspicious when I start seeing lots of hypothesis about why it won’t work

Its why the conspiracists say the global warming hoax is there to collapse the west. Whilst Western ideologues lay waste to their economies growing economies use fossil fuel like crazy. It’s a theory attractive to “smart” people to fool them.

No one here can explain why Australia shuts down its use of fossil fuels whilst China builds MORE coal fired power stations every year – without a whimper of critique.

Don’t forget wookie, it was YOU who provided the link to the above research as a solution to the world’s problems. It was an interesting study with a considerable amount of information, and like good scientific research it discovered that the original hypothesis did not stack up to expectations and reported the results. Going on your reaction I presume you would go ahead regardless and possibly cause a major environmental disaster.

You could always do it the easy way and just plant trees – but no doubt there will be another study from brilliant researchers that wouldn’t work either.

I’ve been howled at here for years mentioning that white paint could cool the planet and its been rejected. Some architect visited a housing estate in Sydney and measured the temperatures directly and pointed out all these dark roofs and no shading made the suburb on one day the hottest place on the planet. To my knowledge not one thing has been done about it – too hard. You’d think people would grow tired of living in a furnace, apparently not.

Do you really think you are the only person that knows white paint or even snow reflects heat? Do you really think everyone is more uninformed than you?

PermeateFree said:

monkey skipper said:

https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2023/11/ocean-warming-is-accelerating—and-hotspots-reveal-which-areas-a

a slightly more recent article going down the same path it seems

Published on the 02 Nov 2023 by UNSW Media

The Southern Ocean saw the largest increase in heat storage over the past two decades. Photo: Getty Images.

Ocean warming has accelerated dramatically since the 1990s, nearly doubling during 2010–2020 relative to 1990–2000, according to new UNSW Sydney-led research.

The study, published this week in Nature Communications, also shows some areas of the ocean are doing more of the work in heat uptake or absorption, which has implications for our understanding of sea-level rise and climate impacts.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activity traps heat within the climate system, warming air, the land surface, the oceans, and melting polar ice. Oceans do by far the most work, absorbing more than 90 per cent of the excess human-generated heat accumulated in the Earth’s climate system, moderating atmospheric temperature rises.

While ocean warming helps slow the pace of climate change, it is not without cost, says Scientia Professor Matthew England, co-author of the study from the UNSW Centre for Marine Science and Innovation.

“The world ocean, in 2023, is now the hottest ever recorded, and sea levels are rising because heat causes water to expand and ice to melt,” says Prof. England. “Ecosystems are also experiencing unprecedented heat stress, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are changing rapidly, and the costs are enormous.”

“Right now, the ocean is warming at a dramatically accelerating rate, nearly doubling during the 2010s relative to the 1990s,” says Dr Zhi Li, lead author of the study from the UNSW Centre for Marine Science and Innovation. “What we wanted to do in this study was to figure out exactly where this ocean heat uptake has been occurring.”

Hotspots of ocean heat uptake
For the study, the researchers evaluated all available observations of ocean warming activity spanning modern Argo float data – an international ocean research program that collects information using robotic instruments – to those taken in the 1950s when only sparse measurements were made from ship-borne devices. They then analysed the heat uptake across water masses and quantified each water mass’s role in ocean heat content change.

They found oceanic warming has been pervasive worldwide, spreading from the surface to the deep-sea regions known as the abyssal layers and spanning each basin from the tropics to the polar regions. However, the distribution of ocean warming by region was far from uniform.

The Southern Ocean saw the largest increase in heat storage over the past two decades, holding almost the same excess anthropogenic heat as the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean combined. This includes two large masses of water in the Southern Ocean that combine to fill a depth range of 300 – 1500 metres.

Read more: Ocean warming and sea-level rise are on a fast track

“Melting ice caps, extreme weather, and marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, are all highly sensitive to ocean temperature changes,” says Dr Sjoerd Groeskamp, co-author of the study from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. “It is critical we understand exactly how and where the ocean warms – both now and into the future.”

Exactly how heat uptake plays out over the coming decades and beyond remains highly uncertain. For example, if the oceans develop a reduced capacity to absorb heat, it will have profound implications for the rate of future climate change.

The scientists say their findings highlight an urgent need to increase monitoring of the global oceans, especially in remote locations like the polar oceans, as well as key regions of the subtropical and coastal seas to better understand and predict sea-level rise and impacts on marine ecosystems.

“Without Argo floats, for example, this study would not have been possible,” says Prof. England.

The team also call for more international action from big-emitting nations to meet their net zero carbon targets as soon as possible and limit the damage from uncontrolled ocean warming.

“Without any action, these net zero pledges are just meaningless,” says Dr Groeskamp.

>>“Without any action, these net zero pledges are just meaningless,” says Dr Groeskamp.<<

It says it all! Behind all this procrastination is greed, growth and money. If we want any chance to save ourselves, we must change our attitude toward life and prosperity, but it’s not looking good.

There’s no way you dress up the greed for the growth of their money to make it sound like life and prosperity.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

monkey skipper said:

https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2023/11/ocean-warming-is-accelerating—and-hotspots-reveal-which-areas-a

a slightly more recent article going down the same path it seems

Published on the 02 Nov 2023 by UNSW Media

The Southern Ocean saw the largest increase in heat storage over the past two decades. Photo: Getty Images.

Ocean warming has accelerated dramatically since the 1990s, nearly doubling during 2010–2020 relative to 1990–2000, according to new UNSW Sydney-led research.

The study, published this week in Nature Communications, also shows some areas of the ocean are doing more of the work in heat uptake or absorption, which has implications for our understanding of sea-level rise and climate impacts.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activity traps heat within the climate system, warming air, the land surface, the oceans, and melting polar ice. Oceans do by far the most work, absorbing more than 90 per cent of the excess human-generated heat accumulated in the Earth’s climate system, moderating atmospheric temperature rises.

While ocean warming helps slow the pace of climate change, it is not without cost, says Scientia Professor Matthew England, co-author of the study from the UNSW Centre for Marine Science and Innovation.

“The world ocean, in 2023, is now the hottest ever recorded, and sea levels are rising because heat causes water to expand and ice to melt,” says Prof. England. “Ecosystems are also experiencing unprecedented heat stress, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are changing rapidly, and the costs are enormous.”

“Right now, the ocean is warming at a dramatically accelerating rate, nearly doubling during the 2010s relative to the 1990s,” says Dr Zhi Li, lead author of the study from the UNSW Centre for Marine Science and Innovation. “What we wanted to do in this study was to figure out exactly where this ocean heat uptake has been occurring.”

Hotspots of ocean heat uptake
For the study, the researchers evaluated all available observations of ocean warming activity spanning modern Argo float data – an international ocean research program that collects information using robotic instruments – to those taken in the 1950s when only sparse measurements were made from ship-borne devices. They then analysed the heat uptake across water masses and quantified each water mass’s role in ocean heat content change.

They found oceanic warming has been pervasive worldwide, spreading from the surface to the deep-sea regions known as the abyssal layers and spanning each basin from the tropics to the polar regions. However, the distribution of ocean warming by region was far from uniform.

The Southern Ocean saw the largest increase in heat storage over the past two decades, holding almost the same excess anthropogenic heat as the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean combined. This includes two large masses of water in the Southern Ocean that combine to fill a depth range of 300 – 1500 metres.

Read more: Ocean warming and sea-level rise are on a fast track

“Melting ice caps, extreme weather, and marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, are all highly sensitive to ocean temperature changes,” says Dr Sjoerd Groeskamp, co-author of the study from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. “It is critical we understand exactly how and where the ocean warms – both now and into the future.”

Exactly how heat uptake plays out over the coming decades and beyond remains highly uncertain. For example, if the oceans develop a reduced capacity to absorb heat, it will have profound implications for the rate of future climate change.

The scientists say their findings highlight an urgent need to increase monitoring of the global oceans, especially in remote locations like the polar oceans, as well as key regions of the subtropical and coastal seas to better understand and predict sea-level rise and impacts on marine ecosystems.

“Without Argo floats, for example, this study would not have been possible,” says Prof. England.

The team also call for more international action from big-emitting nations to meet their net zero carbon targets as soon as possible and limit the damage from uncontrolled ocean warming.

“Without any action, these net zero pledges are just meaningless,” says Dr Groeskamp.

>>“Without any action, these net zero pledges are just meaningless,” says Dr Groeskamp.<<

It says it all! Behind all this procrastination is greed, growth and money. If we want any chance to save ourselves, we must change our attitude toward life and prosperity, but it’s not looking good.

There’s no way you dress up the greed for the growth of their money to make it sound like life and prosperity.

It depends on what the hold highest, the life of their family or money. People do not realise the seriousness of the situation. It is not about everything will be alright after 2050 as it will not, and that is the biggest swindle of all time.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

>>“Without any action, these net zero pledges are just meaningless,” says Dr Groeskamp.<<

It says it all! Behind all this procrastination is greed, growth and money. If we want any chance to save ourselves, we must change our attitude toward life and prosperity, but it’s not looking good.

There’s no way you dress up the greed for the growth of their money to make it sound like life and prosperity.

It depends on what the hold highest, the life of their family or money. People do not realise the seriousness of the situation. It is not about everything will be alright after 2050 as it will not, and that is the biggest swindle of all time.

This. Yes. I am aware of the seriousness of the situation.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

There’s no way you dress up the greed for the growth of their money to make it sound like life and prosperity.

It depends on what the hold highest, the life of their family or money. People do not realise the seriousness of the situation. It is not about everything will be alright after 2050 as it will not, and that is the biggest swindle of all time.

This. Yes. I am aware of the seriousness of the situation.

It is like, “you can’t give the water back to the river system, whole communities will die if that happens”. Which of course is absolute garbage. They simply won’t be able to afford to have three speedboats and four landcruisers in the carport the size of a place where fifty Palestinians used to live.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

Why is it people who think they know everything, assume researchers have not thought of, or conducted the investigations like you propose? But no, you think your thoughts are so original and brilliant that these highly educated professionals are cretins by comparison.

These brilliant researchers , lie.

These brilliant professionals always seem to fuck everything up

They don’t have adult supervision

If Australia was so concerned with greenhouse gas emissions – just stop digging up coal , oil and gas and stop selling it.

So speaketh the Holiday Forum fool.

I’ve never heard what you have personally done to reduce YOUR carbon use.

Care to share ?

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

These brilliant researchers , lie.

These brilliant professionals always seem to fuck everything up

They don’t have adult supervision

If Australia was so concerned with greenhouse gas emissions – just stop digging up coal , oil and gas and stop selling it.

So speaketh the Holiday Forum fool.

I’ve never heard what you have personally done to reduce YOUR carbon use.

Care to share ?

And all the while China builds coal fired power stations

And not a peep from you about this discrepancy of thought.

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

So speaketh the Holiday Forum fool.

I’ve never heard what you have personally done to reduce YOUR carbon use.

Care to share ?

And all the while China builds coal fired power stations

And not a peep from you about this discrepancy of thought.

China is by far the largest co2 polluter and I think a lot more pressure to mend their ways should be brought to bear on them. The problem is they are doing a great deal more than most countries to reduce their co2 emissions, plus they can say it was not them who began the pollution, which is compounded when the West is also lagging behind reducing their emissions. So, a difficult situation to pressure others when every industrialised county needs to do so much more.

As for my part, I am as guilty as anyone else, but this is not about what the individual can do, but what society demands of governments and big business, plus the insatiable requirement for growth which is the engine of co2 production, along with a greatly reduced interest regarding moral consideration. In other words, we (including China) must change our attitude and the way we look at the world and our role within it and frankly I don’t see that happening.