Arctic feedback

[konradv]

If it works as you allege, why don't you have any experimental evidence to back it up?

How is that not an experiment? More energy absorbed demands an explanation for what happens to it. Got one?

It is immediately radiated. CO2 doesn't trap, store, or otherwise hold any IR it absorbs. It scatters it.

POP QUIZ time. What is the most effective means of dissipating heat?

Answer, scatter it. CO2 is a cooling mechanism goob, not an insulator or a source of heat.

So you "scatter" the photons, wouldn't ~50% be back towards earth?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If it works as you allege, why don't you have any experimental evidence to back it up?

How is that not an experiment? More energy absorbed demands an explanation for what happens to it. Got one?

Sounds like phrenology, does not sound like a real science to me, because it isn't

 

[wirebender]

[So you "scatter" the photons, wouldn't ~50% be back towards earth?

Along which vector might they travel? EM fields are propagated in the direction from which the field has the greatest magnitude. Where on earth might the em field propagated from the surface be smaller than that propagated by the atmosphere?

And then there is that nasty old second law of thermodynamics stating explicitly that heat can not transfer from a cold object (atmosphere) to a warm object (surface of the earth).

CO2 does not, can not, never has, and never will radiate energy of any sort back to the surface of the earth and it doesn't hold it in the atmosphere either. You have been hoaxed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor Bent, still playing that broken record. So you think that you know more than all the physicist in the world. Get back to us when you have published your amazing proofs in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If this were true, then the world should never have cooled after the MWP, but we all know that didn't happen.

The problem with all these alarmist theories about run-away warming are the facts of history.

Abstract posted, full article at link.

Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming

Permafrost soils contain enormous amounts of organic carbon, which could act as a positive feedback to global climate change due to enhanced respiration rates with warming. We have used a terrestrial ecosystem model that includes permafrost carbon
dynamics, inhibition of respiration in frozen soil layers, vertical mixing of soil carbon from surface to permafrost layers, and CH4 emissions from flooded areas, and which better matches new circumpolar inventories of soil carbon stocks, to explore the potential
for carbon-climate feedbacks at high latitudes. Contrary to model results for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4), when permafrost processes are included, terrestrial ecosystems north of 60°N could shift from being a sink to a source of CO2 by the end of the 21st century when forced by a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 climate change scenario. Between 1860 and 2100, the model response to combined CO2 fertilization and climate change changes from a sink of 68 Pg to a 27 þ −7 Pg sink to 4 þ −18 Pg source, depending on the processes and parameter values used. The integrated change in carbon due to climate change shifts from near zero, which is within the range of previous model estimates, to a climate-induced loss of carbon by ecosystems in the range of 25 þ −3 to 85þ −16 Pg C, depending on processes included in the model, with a best estimate of a 62 þ −7 Pg C loss. Methane emissions from high-latitude regions are calculated to increase from 34 Tg CH4∕y
to 41–70 TgCH4∕y, with increases due to CO2 fertilization, permafrost thaw, and warming-induced increased CH4 flux densities partially offset by a reduction in wetland extent.

alarmist theories all?

Climate Change: Causes

them damn NASA scientists!!!!

 

[wirebender]

Poor Bent, still playing that broken record. So you think that you know more than all the physicist in the world. Get back to us when you have published your amazing proofs in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

All of the physicists in the world aren't on your side rocks. Just those making a killing off the agw hoax. It is real physicists who are tearing the hoax down around your ears. Unfortunately, you are too caught up in your faith to see it.

By the way, my arguments are based not only on peer reviewed research, but the very laws of nature. Again, to wraped up in your faith to recognize such a fact.

 

[wirebender]

Permafrost soils contain enormous amounts of organic carbon, which could act as a positive feedback to global climate change due to enhanced respiration rates with warming. We have used a terrestrial ecosystem model that includes permafrost carbon
dynamics, inhibition of respiration in frozen soil layers, vertical mixing of soil carbon from surface to permafrost layers, and CH4 emissions from flooded areas, and which better matches new circumpolar inventories of soil carbon stocks, to explore the potential
for carbon-climate feedbacks at high latitudes. Contrary to model results for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4), when permafrost processes are included, terrestrial ecosystems north of 60°N could shift from being a sink to a source of CO2 by the end of the 21st century when forced by a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 climate change scenario. Between 1860 and 2100, the model response to combined CO2 fertilization and climate change changes from a sink of 68 Pg to a 27 þ −7 Pg sink to 4 þ −18 Pg source, depending on the processes and parameter values used. The integrated change in carbon due to climate change shifts from near zero, which is within the range of previous model estimates, to a climate-induced loss of carbon by ecosystems in the range of 25 þ −3 to 85þ −16 Pg C, depending on processes included in the model, with a best estimate of a 62 þ −7 Pg C loss. Methane emissions from high-latitude regions are calculated to increase from 34 Tg CH4∕y
to 41–70 TgCH4∕y, with increases due to CO2 fertilization, permafrost thaw, and warming-induced increased CH4 flux densities partially offset by a reduction in wetland extent.

[/QUOTE]

alarmist theories all?

Climate Change: Causes

them damn NASA scientists!!!! [/QUOTE]

The degree to which you guys have been duped is amazing. Did you even read the abstract. The pseudoscientist who wrote the paper started equivocating in the very first sentence when he said that the carbon in permafrost "could" act as a feedback. That should tell any thinking person that the author doesn't know. Then in the next sentence he states that his research amounts to the output of a computer model.

Since he doesn't know whether the carbon is or isn't a feedback, of what value is a computer model built upon his assumption that it is?

Here is a newsflash for you. The present state of computer modelling can't even predict with any degree of accuracy whether or not it is going to rain on my picnic next saturday and we understand the forces that drive local weather patterns to a much greater degree than we understand the forces that drive climate. The idea that anyone would present, as scientific knowledge, the output of a flawed computer program is, in a word, laughable and that anyone would accept that computer output as evidence of anything is just plain pathetic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor Bent, still playing that broken record. So you think that you know more than all the physicist in the world. Get back to us when you have published your amazing proofs in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

All of the physicists in the world aren't on your side rocks. Just those making a killing off the agw hoax. It is real physicists who are tearing the hoax down around your ears. Unfortunately, you are too caught up in your faith to see it.

By the way, my arguments are based not only on peer reviewed research, but the very laws of nature. Again, to wraped up in your faith to recognize such a fact.

LOL. American Institute of Physics, largest society of physicists in the world'

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You claim your arguements are based on peer reviewed science, yet do not link to any of it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumbass Bent.

Study: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting

“It was thought that seawater kept the East Siberian Arctic Shelf permafrost frozen,” Shakhova said. “Nobody considered this huge area.”

Earlier studies in Siberia focused on methane escaping from thawing terrestrial permafrost. Semiletov’s work during the 1990s showed, among other things, that the amount of methane being emitted from terrestrial sources decreased at higher latitudes. But those studies stopped at the coast. Starting in the fall of 2003, Shakhova, Semiletov and the rest of their team took the studies offshore. From 2003 through 2008, they took annual research cruises throughout the shelf and sampled seawater at various depths and the air 10 meters above the ocean. In September 2006, they flew a helicopter over the same area, taking air samples at up to 2,000 meters in the atmosphere. In April 2007, they conducted a winter expedition on the sea ice.

They found that more than 80 percent of the deep water and greater than half of surface water had methane levels more than eight times that of normal seawater. In some areas, the saturation levels reached at least 250 times that of background levels in the summer and 1,400 times higher in the winter.

They found corresponding results in the air directly above the ocean surface. Methane levels were elevated overall and the seascape was dotted with more than 100 hotspots. This, combined with winter expedition results that found methane gas trapped under and in the sea ice, showed the team that the methane was not only being dissolved in the water, it was bubbling out into the atmosphere.

These findings were further confirmed when Shakhova and her colleagues sampled methane levels at higher elevations. Methane levels throughout the Arctic are usually 8 to 10 percent higher than the global baseline. When they flew over the shelf, they found methane at levels another 5 to 10 percent higher than the already elevated arctic levels.

They found areas a kilometer across venting to the atmosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So now Global Warming is destabilizing the Arctic seabed?

LOL

Really?

What a complete fucking joke

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[So you "scatter" the photons, wouldn't ~50% be back towards earth?

Along which vector might they travel? EM fields are propagated in the direction from which the field has the greatest magnitude. Where on earth might the em field propagated from the surface be smaller than that propagated by the atmosphere?

And then there is that nasty old second law of thermodynamics stating explicitly that heat can not transfer from a cold object (atmosphere) to a warm object (surface of the earth).

CO2 does not, can not, never has, and never will radiate energy of any sort back to the surface of the earth and it doesn't hold it in the atmosphere either. You have been hoaxed.

Someone posted a conversation between a physicist and a Global Warming climatologist that was totally spot on but I can't seem to find it

 

[wirebender]

So now Global Warming is destabilizing the Arctic seabed?

LOL

Really?

What a complete fucking joke

Funny thing abou tthe arctic seabed; it is in reality a chain of active volcanoes. Somehow the claim of vast stores of methane gas existing within the same geographical area as a string of active volcanoes strikes me as a bit nutty. The idiots rocks references weren't even aware that they were sampling water above active volcanoes. They were quite sure that volcanoes couldn't be active at such depths. Another warmist claim bites the dust.

Now they are claiming that the fact that a chain of active volcanoes directly below the arctic couldn't possibly have anything to do with fluctuating ice on the surface. The things warmists accept on faith is dizzying.

Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes

AFP: Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths

 

[wirebender]

Poor Bent, still playing that broken record. So you think that you know more than all the physicist in the world. Get back to us when you have published your amazing proofs in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

All of the physicists in the world aren't on your side rocks. Just those making a killing off the agw hoax. It is real physicists who are tearing the hoax down around your ears. Unfortunately, you are too caught up in your faith to see it.

By the way, my arguments are based not only on peer reviewed research, but the very laws of nature. Again, to wraped up in your faith to recognize such a fact.

LOL. American Institute of Physics, largest society of physicists in the world'

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You claim your arguements are based on peer reviewed science, yet do not link to any of it.

You keep posting that bit of dogma rocks but when asked which part of it you believe represents proof of anything, you remain unable to answer. It is nothing but one assumption based upon another assumption with no proof at all, or actual experimental evidence to support any of it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All of the physicists in the world aren't on your side rocks. Just those making a killing off the agw hoax. It is real physicists who are tearing the hoax down around your ears. Unfortunately, you are too caught up in your faith to see it.

By the way, my arguments are based not only on peer reviewed research, but the very laws of nature. Again, to wraped up in your faith to recognize such a fact.

LOL. American Institute of Physics, largest society of physicists in the world'

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You claim your arguements are based on peer reviewed science, yet do not link to any of it.

You keep posting that bit of dogma rocks but when asked which part of it you believe represents proof of anything, you remain unable to answer. It is nothing but one assumption based upon another assumption with no proof at all, or actual experimental evidence to support any of it.

This is science?

Time to play the Decline Hider favorite Faux science game

Wheel
of
Climate
Change!

 

[Old Rocks]

So now Global Warming is destabilizing the Arctic seabed?

LOL

Really?

What a complete fucking joke

Funny thing abou tthe arctic seabed; it is in reality a chain of active volcanoes. Somehow the claim of vast stores of methane gas existing within the same geographical area as a string of active volcanoes strikes me as a bit nutty. The idiots rocks references weren't even aware that they were sampling water above active volcanoes. They were quite sure that volcanoes couldn't be active at such depths. Another warmist claim bites the dust.

Now they are claiming that the fact that a chain of active volcanoes directly below the arctic couldn't possibly have anything to do with fluctuating ice on the surface. The things warmists accept on faith is dizzying.

Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes

AFP: Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths

Bent, that is really stupid. The Artic Ocean is called an ocean because it covers a very large area. In that area is a rift zones, same as in the other oceans. The Gulf of Mexico has a great amount of clathrates, and some volcanos also. As does the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean, also.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf does not contain any volcanos. But it has one hell of a reservoir of CH4. As do many other Arctic Ocean Shelves.

 

[Old Rocks]

All of the physicists in the world aren't on your side rocks. Just those making a killing off the agw hoax. It is real physicists who are tearing the hoax down around your ears. Unfortunately, you are too caught up in your faith to see it.

By the way, my arguments are based not only on peer reviewed research, but the very laws of nature. Again, to wraped up in your faith to recognize such a fact.

LOL. American Institute of Physics, largest society of physicists in the world'

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You claim your arguements are based on peer reviewed science, yet do not link to any of it.

You keep posting that bit of dogma rocks but when asked which part of it you believe represents proof of anything, you remain unable to answer. It is nothing but one assumption based upon another assumption with no proof at all, or actual experimental evidence to support any of it.

All of it, dumbass, all of it.

 

[wirebender]

All of it, dumbass, all of it.

So you keep claiming but alas, you are wrong. Care to point out a single passage in the whole thing that constitutes proof of anything more than the fact that it doesn't take much to fool you?

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. The single biggest Scientific Society in the world is out to fool poor little me. As are all the rest of the Scientific Societies in the world. Along with all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities. I think it a bit more logical to believe that one anamous poster on an internet message board is full of shit.

 

[westwall]

Contrary to model results for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4), when permafrost processes are included, terrestrial ecosystems north of 60°N could shift from being a sink to a source of CO2 by the end of the 21st century when forced by a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 climate change scenario. Between 1860 and 2100, the model response to combined CO2 fertilization and climate change changes from a sink of 68 Pg to a 27 þ −7 Pg sink to 4 þ −18 Pg source, depending on the processes and parameter values used. The integrated change in carbon due to climate change shifts from near zero, which is within the range of previous model estimates, to a climate-induced loss of carbon by ecosystems in the range of 25 þ −3 to 85þ −16 Pg C, depending on processes included in the model, with a best estimate of a 62 þ −7 Pg C loss.


Please note, this entire "study" is produced by pseudo scientists sitting in a room plugging random numbers into a crappy computer model and you fools lap it up. There isn't a SINGLE piece of empirical data in this entire BS paper. Not one. And you claim this is science.

 

[westwall]

I see. The single biggest Scientific Society in the world is out to fool poor little me. As are all the rest of the Scientific Societies in the world. Along with all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities. I think it a bit more logical to believe that one anamous poster on an internet message board is full of shit.

Wow, for once you got something right. They are indeed fooling you. And you are so gullible it's easy for them.