←back to thread

480 points riffraff | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
taylorlapeyre ◴[] No.44461488[source]
The deep-ocean vent south of Antarctica is real but small, on the order of a few-tenths Pg C yr⁻¹. The claim that it could double atmospheric CO₂ exaggerates the flux by three orders of magnitude relative to observed values and known physical limits.

The most optimistic estimate of deep-water outgassing south of 60 ° S is 0.36 Pg C yr⁻¹. Even if that rate tripled and persisted unabated, it would take more than 800 years to add 895 Pg C (which would be what it would require to justify the press release’s claims of “doubling”)

What the salinity reversal can do is:

- Expose ice shelves to warmer subsurface water, accelerating sea-level rise.

- Reduce the Southern Ocean’s role as a sink by a few tenths Pg C yr⁻¹, nudging the global ocean sink (~2.7 Pg C yr⁻¹) downward.

- Perturb atmospheric circulation patterns, with knock-on effects for the Atlantic overturning (but those links remain speculative).

replies(6): >>44461561 #>>44461661 #>>44462991 #>>44463052 #>>44463345 #>>44463493 #
ImaCake ◴[] No.44461561[source]
Thanks for the clarification, these click-bait titles pop up again and again around very interesting technical climate science, causing not only pointless panic but allowing denialists to drive doubt by pointing out the BS.

Its doubly frustrating because these studies invariably indicate that climate change is happening, getting worse, and triggering feedback loops that amplify CO2.

replies(3): >>44461695 #>>44461732 #>>44462420 #
eastbound[dead post] ◴[] No.44461695[source]
[flagged]
1. bryanrasmussen ◴[] No.44461815{3}[source]
Your personal test for someone making a technical claim on one matter is to ask them a technical question on another thing that they have not claimed any expertise in. If they guess and guess wrong you ignore their claims on the thing they supposedly know something about because.. points I guess.

Hey, I do a lot of crazy stuff myself, so not exactly blaming you but I don't think your "flooding == really sad" claim holds up here, because of the crazy.

replies(1): >>44464178 #
2. eastbound ◴[] No.44464178[source]
It’s not how the discussion generally happens. If they are adamant that this is truth, then they are bad scientists; if they say they don’t know, of course they’re good scientists.

But it goes together: Global warming, wage gap, and the 3 other topics that shall not be named, they’re wrong on all five together for the same scientific reasons with any ability to open the discussion to being wrong.

Which makes that, global warming is, to my knowledge, only a statement by people who believe other scientific falsehoods.