4 ms·

Please, don’t spread misinformation. The problem is already bad enough. The ocean is far from being saturated in CO2 even at the projected temperature increase

Please, don’t spread misinformation. The problem is already bad enough. The ocean is far from being saturated in CO2 even at the projected temperature increase. It will not release its content into the atmosphere. That’s not how this particular equilibrium works. The potential issue we are facing is not a release but the end or more likely a slow down of absorption as currents bringing water from the surface to the depth are distributed. That could lead to surface water becoming effectively saturated. This would be a big issue because the current strategy to limit overall warming is reaching net zero in 2050 and then letting the ocean socks up some of the excess CO2. From my point of view, that’s why we should be sceptical of a purely net zero based solution and need to invest heavily in carbon capture, clean abundant energy (we really need fusion more than ever) and seriously study geo-engineering based temporary solutions to grant us the time we need.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
silverquiet 2y ago
> current strategy to limit overall warming is reaching net zero in 2050 It appears to me that the "current strategy" is to increase carbon emissions ad infinitum until we can no longer find hydrocarbon deposits in the Earth or we can no longer harvest them because economic/life systems on Earth have collapsed too much to support civilization. Your idea is certainly smarter, but I haven't seen any evidence that it will actually be implemented.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  You may not be aware of the current strategy/goings on then. The amount of renewables being installed right now is mind boggling, it's a huge portion of the newly installed capacity in the last few years. A bunch of work is ongoing to try and get a reactor design that is both cheap enough and able to get through the terrible nuclear beaurocracy to bring that emissions nearly free energy source online in a more meaningful way. Electric cars have also come down in cost to now only be stupid for many of us. This looks to change as better/cheaper battery chemistry comes on line in the next ten years so that may actually be an actuarily sound idea for most of us by the end of the decade. There's also a bunch of advances in air conditioning that look quite interesting (that's a big deal as ac consumes ~10 % of world electricty and that should clime as world temperature climbs). It's broadly pretty positive out there, with many things starting to hit the market, which should slowly phase out the old gear as it wears out, which should have major impact in the coming decades.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    I live in Texas, which makes me feel like I am at least a bit aware of the situation. Texas is installing more renewables and grid batteries than any other state I believe but also keeps that rather quiet because of political nonsense. On that note, they also put a rather punitive registration fee on electric vehicles. On the other hand, Texas is home to the Permian Basin (I actually just went to the Permian Basin Petroleum Museum in Midland, TX a few weeks ago and can heartily recommend it in the area, which you almost certainly never will be). It, along with oil and gas the country over are booming; I believe natural gas is so cheap that it goes negative in price at some times, and energy demand seems only limited by supply. Carbon content in the atmosphere recorded a record increase from last year to this year. You are not wrong that there are some positive developments, but I would disagree that it is broadly pretty positive; it is possible (likely even?) that it is too late to stop the process that we have set in motion. My one real hope is that we seriously consider solar radiation management - while it is not exactly a "solution" it does seem like it could buy time to work the problem and allow some of the tech you mention to mature.
    - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
      > it is possible (likely even?) that it is too late to stop the process that we have set in motion. While I’m broadly in line with the content of your comment, I wanted to react to this way of phrasing the issue. We haven’t set something in motion. What’s happening is not a self perpetuating process that we have somehow triggered. Global warming is directly related to the amount of GHG in the atmosphere and the reason it increases is because we keep putting more. If we stop, the situation will stop getting worse. That’s the heart of net zero and we are very much in the driving seat to make it happens.
GeoAtreides 2y ago
"As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide leaks out of the ocean like a glass of root beer going flat on a warm day." "However, as water temperature increases, its ability dissolve CO2 decreases. Global warming is expected to reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere... which will lead to even higher temperatures." https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  Please, read your own quote: “Global warming is _expected to reduce_ the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2”. I nicely underlined the important part which confirms what I said in my previous comment to help you.
  - GeoAtreides 2y ago
    I would suggest reading the NASA article I linked, as it explains the issue a bit more in detail than a simple HN comment could ever do.
    - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
      I already had before you posted it. It doesn’t support the idea that the oceans will release carbon in the atmosphere overall. Note that the effect of emissions on the ocean capture capacity is taken into account in the IPCC modelling work including the work done since the article you link was published in 2008 and none of the IPCC scenarios predict a reversing of the ocean sinking ability, not even the worse SSP considered. You would be right to point out that using the same argument (IPCC modelling) you could say my scepticism regarding net zero is lacking foundations which would be fair. I would reply to that that I don’t actually believe we will reach net zero in 2050.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

silverquiet 2y ago

> current strategy to limit overall warming is reaching net zero in 2050 It appears to me that the "current strategy" is to increase carbon emissions ad infinitum until we can no longer find hydrocarbon deposits in the Earth or we can no longer harvest them because economic/life systems on Earth have collapsed too much to support civilization. Your idea is certainly smarter, but I haven't seen any evidence that it will actually be implemented.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
You may not be aware of the current strategy/goings on then. The amount of renewables being installed right now is mind boggling, it's a huge portion of the newly installed capacity in the last few years. A bunch of work is ongoing to try and get a reactor design that is both cheap enough and able to get through the terrible nuclear beaurocracy to bring that emissions nearly free energy source online in a more meaningful way. Electric cars have also come down in cost to now only be stupid for many of us. This looks to change as better/cheaper battery chemistry comes on line in the next ten years so that may actually be an actuarily sound idea for most of us by the end of the decade. There's also a bunch of advances in air conditioning that look quite interesting (that's a big deal as ac consumes ~10 % of world electricty and that should clime as world temperature climbs). It's broadly pretty positive out there, with many things starting to hit the market, which should slowly phase out the old gear as it wears out, which should have major impact in the coming decades.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  I live in Texas, which makes me feel like I am at least a bit aware of the situation. Texas is installing more renewables and grid batteries than any other state I believe but also keeps that rather quiet because of political nonsense. On that note, they also put a rather punitive registration fee on electric vehicles. On the other hand, Texas is home to the Permian Basin (I actually just went to the Permian Basin Petroleum Museum in Midland, TX a few weeks ago and can heartily recommend it in the area, which you almost certainly never will be). It, along with oil and gas the country over are booming; I believe natural gas is so cheap that it goes negative in price at some times, and energy demand seems only limited by supply. Carbon content in the atmosphere recorded a record increase from last year to this year. You are not wrong that there are some positive developments, but I would disagree that it is broadly pretty positive; it is possible (likely even?) that it is too late to stop the process that we have set in motion. My one real hope is that we seriously consider solar radiation management - while it is not exactly a "solution" it does seem like it could buy time to work the problem and allow some of the tech you mention to mature.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    > it is possible (likely even?) that it is too late to stop the process that we have set in motion. While I’m broadly in line with the content of your comment, I wanted to react to this way of phrasing the issue. We haven’t set something in motion. What’s happening is not a self perpetuating process that we have somehow triggered. Global warming is directly related to the amount of GHG in the atmosphere and the reason it increases is because we keep putting more. If we stop, the situation will stop getting worse. That’s the heart of net zero and we are very much in the driving seat to make it happens.

GeoAtreides 2y ago

"As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide leaks out of the ocean like a glass of root beer going flat on a warm day." "However, as water temperature increases, its ability dissolve CO2 decreases. Global warming is expected to reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere... which will lead to even higher temperatures." https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
Please, read your own quote: “Global warming is _expected to reduce_ the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2”. I nicely underlined the important part which confirms what I said in my previous comment to help you.
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  I would suggest reading the NASA article I linked, as it explains the issue a bit more in detail than a simple HN comment could ever do.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    I already had before you posted it. It doesn’t support the idea that the oceans will release carbon in the atmosphere overall. Note that the effect of emissions on the ocean capture capacity is taken into account in the IPCC modelling work including the work done since the article you link was published in 2008 and none of the IPCC scenarios predict a reversing of the ocean sinking ability, not even the worse SSP considered. You would be right to point out that using the same argument (IPCC modelling) you could say my scepticism regarding net zero is lacking foundations which would be fair. I would reply to that that I don’t actually believe we will reach net zero in 2050.