RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 522
- 155
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/staticslotmachine-4.png
The kookster seeks help but it is not the help he sorely needs. (Try a psychiatrist!!!).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/staticslotmachine-4.png
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/staticslotmachine-4.png
The kookster seeks help but it is not the help he sorely needs. (Try a psychiatrist!!!).
You're already lost. And losing. You're just too retarded to understand how badly you've lost this battle.http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/staticslotmachine-4.png
The kookster seeks help but it is not the help he sorely needs. (Try a psychiatrist!!!).
But not losing...................
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html
One of the greatest sources of uncertainty for future climate predictions is the response of the global carbon cycle to climate change1. Although approximately one-half of total CO2 emissions is at present taken up by combined land and ocean carbon reservoirs2, models predict a decline in future carbon uptake by these reservoirs, resulting in a positive carbon–climate feedback3. Several recent studies suggest that rates of carbon uptake by the land4, 5, 6 and ocean7, 8, 9, 10 have remained constant or declined in recent decades. Other work, however, has called into question the reported decline11, 12, 13
Here we use global-scale atmospheric CO2 measurements, CO2 emission inventories and their full range of uncertainties to calculate changes in global CO2 sources and sinks during the past 50 years. Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4?±?0.8 to 5.0?±?0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010. Therefore, it is very unlikely that both land and ocean carbon sinks have decreased on a global scale. Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions
IPCC Final Report | Arkansas Climate Awareness Project
CO2 Concentrations Rise as Emissions Increase, Sinks Decrease
Growth of Atmospheric CO2 Faster than Expected
Atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35% faster than
expected since 2000. Levels of greenhouse gases are rising about 2.5
times faster this decade than they did during the 1990s due to rapid
economic growth, increases in carbon intensity and a decline in the
efficiency of ocean and land CO2 sinks.
[[ “Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth fromeconomic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks” ---Publication of the National Academy of Sciences, October 20071]]
CO2 Saturation of Southern Ocean Will Increase the Rate of Rising
Temperatures
Atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising
temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated, according to
a new analysis that finds the Southern Ocean (ocean areas below the
60°S latitude), the earth’s biggest carbon sink, has become
CO2-saturated. The ocean hasn’t absorbed any additional CO2 since
1981, but CO2 emissions have increased by 40% since that year.
[[“Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate
Change” Science, June 22, 20072]]
North Atlantic Carbon Sink Has Reduced Uptake by Half
Oceans are leaving CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic climate
change has upset the ocean-processes that allow normal carbon
uptake. Reduced heat loss has slowed North-Atlantic ocean
circulation, which consequently inhibits absorption. Ocean sinks
have increased in the past as atmospheric CO2 increased. Study
scientists said they knew this would slow, but they are surprised at
the rate at which it has occurred.
[["A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North
Atlantic” -- Journal of Geophysical Research, Nov. 20073]]
Rising Ozone Stifles Plant Absorption of CO2
Rising levels of ozone pollution over the coming century will erode
the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 at higher levels increases the likelihood of
expressed climate disruption.
[[“Carbon sinks threatened by increasing ozone” -- Nature, July, 26, 20074]]
Thought I'd put this in the CORRECT thread -- because the "debate" over the worthiness of this study spilled into other places...
Models COULD be wrong by up to 2X.. From the abstract to the paper in the OP..
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html
One of the greatest sources of uncertainty for future climate predictions is the response of the global carbon cycle to climate change1. Although approximately one-half of total CO2 emissions is at present taken up by combined land and ocean carbon reservoirs2, models predict a decline in future carbon uptake by these reservoirs, resulting in a positive carbonclimate feedback3. Several recent studies suggest that rates of carbon uptake by the land4, 5, 6 and ocean7, 8, 9, 10 have remained constant or declined in recent decades. Other work, however, has called into question the reported decline11, 12, 13
Here we use global-scale atmospheric CO2 measurements, CO2 emission inventories and their full range of uncertainties to calculate changes in global CO2 sources and sinks during the past 50 years. Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4?±?0.8 to 5.0?±?0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010. Therefore, it is very unlikely that both land and ocean carbon sinks have decreased on a global scale. Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbonclimate interactions
We'll KNOW more about HOW wrong the assumptions have been shortly.. But the authors cite MULTIPLE studies suggesting that the Carbon Sinks have "remained CONSTANT or DECLINED"
If I had the numbers in those quoted studies, I could tell you whether this a factor of 2 -- less or more..
For further evidence, here's just a SAMPLING of papers suggesting DECLINING carbon sinks..
IPCC Final Report | Arkansas Climate Awareness Project
CO2 Concentrations Rise as Emissions Increase, Sinks Decrease
Growth of Atmospheric CO2 Faster than Expected
Atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35% faster than
expected since 2000. Levels of greenhouse gases are rising about 2.5
times faster this decade than they did during the 1990s due to rapid
economic growth, increases in carbon intensity and a decline in the
efficiency of ocean and land CO2 sinks.
[[ Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth fromeconomic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks ---Publication of the National Academy of Sciences, October 20071]]
CO2 Saturation of Southern Ocean Will Increase the Rate of Rising
Temperatures
Atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising
temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated, according to
a new analysis that finds the Southern Ocean (ocean areas below the
60°S latitude), the earths biggest carbon sink, has become
CO2-saturated. The ocean hasnt absorbed any additional CO2 since
1981, but CO2 emissions have increased by 40% since that year.
[[Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate
Change Science, June 22, 20072]]
North Atlantic Carbon Sink Has Reduced Uptake by Half
Oceans are leaving CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic climate
change has upset the ocean-processes that allow normal carbon
uptake. Reduced heat loss has slowed North-Atlantic ocean
circulation, which consequently inhibits absorption. Ocean sinks
have increased in the past as atmospheric CO2 increased. Study
scientists said they knew this would slow, but they are surprised at
the rate at which it has occurred.
[["A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North
Atlantic -- Journal of Geophysical Research, Nov. 20073]]
Rising Ozone Stifles Plant Absorption of CO2
Rising levels of ozone pollution over the coming century will erode
the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 at higher levels increases the likelihood of
expressed climate disruption.
[[Carbon sinks threatened by increasing ozone -- Nature, July, 26, 20074]]
I got a little disoriented during the running retreat that R.T. was executing all over the board from his contentions that we "only need to know the atmos concentration" of CO2. And this study meant very little in terms of accurate GW modeling...
Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science
AFP: Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science
(AFP) 10 hours ago
PARIS Even as Man's output of Earth-warming CO2 has risen, so has the capacity of plants and the oceans to absorb it, scientists said Wednesday, but warned this may not last forever.
Carbon storage by land and sea, known as carbon sinks, has more than doubled in the past 50 years from about 2.4 billion tonnes in 1960 to some five billion tonnes in 2010, said a study in Nature.
At the same time, fossil-fuel CO2 emissions rose almost four-fold.
"The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise because fossil fuel emissions are accelerating not because sinks are diminishing," researcher Ashley Ballantyne of the University of Colorado's geology department told AFP.
The finding was contrary to widespread expectations that carbon sinks were slowing their CO2 uptake.
"We were somewhat surprised by this result because several recent studies have been published showing that the land and oceans have been taking up less CO2," said Ballantyne.
"We discovered that the Earth continues to take up more CO2 every year and there is no indication that this uptake has weakened."
...What we are seeing is that the Earth continues to do the heavy lifting by taking up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, even while humans have done very little to reduce carbon emissions, said Ballantyne. How long this will continue, we dont know....
According to Alden, the trend of sinks gulping atmospheric carbon cannot continue indefinitely. Its not a question of whether or not natural sinks will slow their uptake of carbon, but when, she said.
Were already seeing climate change happen despite the fact that only half of fossil fuel emissions stay in the atmosphere while the other half is drawn down by the land biosphere and oceans, Alden said. If natural sinks saturate as models predict, the impact of human emissions on atmospheric CO2 will double....
White, who directs CU-Boulders Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, likened the increased pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere to a car going full throttle. The faster we go, the more our car starts to shake and rattle, he said. If we drive 100 miles per hour, it is going to shake and rattle a lot more because there is a lot more instability, so its probably time to back off the accelerator, he said. The same is true with CO2 emissions....
It is important to understand that CO2 sinks are not really sinks in the sense that the extra carbon is still present in Earths vegetation, soils and the ocean, said NOAAs Tans. It hasnt disappeared. What we really are seeing is a global carbon system that has been pushed out of equilibrium by the human burning of fossil fuels....
Scientists also are concerned about the increasing uptake of CO2 by the worlds oceans, which is making them more acidic. Dissolved CO2 changes seawater chemistry by forming carbonic acid that is known to damage coral, the fundamental structure of coral reef ecosystems that harbor 25 percent of the worlds fish species...
...A total of 33.6 billion tons of CO2 were emitted globally in 2010, climbing to 34.8 billion tons in 2011, according to the International Energy Agency. Federal budget cuts to U.S. carbon cycle research are making it more difficult to measure and understand both natural and human influences on the carbon cycle, according to the research team.
The good news is that today, nature is helping us out, said White also a professor in CUs geological sciences department. The bad news is that none of us think nature is going to keep helping us out indefinitely. When the time comes that these carbon sinks are no longer taking up carbon, there is going to be a big price to pay.
Contact:
Ashley Ballantyne, 760-846-1391
[email protected]
Jim White, 303-492-5494
[email protected]
Jim Scott, CU media relations, 303-492-3114
[email protected]
Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..
Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..
We already well understand the why. And we are learning more about the how every day.
Denial of known science by people such as yourself will change neither the evidence or facts. The physics was established by Tyndall over 150 years ago. Arrhenius did the math over 100 years ago. This discussion has been open for 150 years, the same amount of time that the discussion on evolution has been open. And the consensus on both is the same.
So what temperatures were predicted for 2050? Much higher than today, right? So why aren't we seeing it today? Must be that your model is fucked.
AGW=Cult
So what temperatures were predicted for 2050? Much higher than today, right? So why aren't we seeing it today? Must be that your model is fucked.
AGW=Cult
Yep, I'm thinking that the models have major flaws. One side believes that the oceans are taken in the heat, while the other believes there's an increase in reflection from an increase in clouds. Either way, I doubt we're going to get the warming forecasted.
Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..
We already well understand the why. And we are learning more about the how every day.
Denial of known science by people such as yourself will change neither the evidence or facts. The physics was established by Tyndall over 150 years ago. Arrhenius did the math over 100 years ago. This discussion has been open for 150 years, the same amount of time that the discussion on evolution has been open. And the consensus on both is the same.
Let's recap shall we?
I tell you that I'm CONCERNED that the earth is warming.. You claim the answer was given 150 yrs ago before tree ring studies, before satellites, before computers, before a Global Mean Surface Annual Temp.
What science specifically am I "denying"?
1) The inaccuracies in the proxy temp studies. CONFIRMED
2) The bias and inaccuracies in the Surface Temp Sites CONFIRMED
3) THe leap to conclusions that CO2 is the cause of EVERYTHING like in those Oyster farming stories in the N.W CONFIRMED
4) The fact that CO2 forcing function is logarithmic and will saturate at higher levels FACT
5) The fraud perpetrated by folks diddling the Surface Data CONFIRMED
6) Our lack of knowledge about the basic parameters that are at the heart of the much touted computer climate models Constantly CONFIRMED
7) The hysteria that a 2degC rise in temp. will ignite a giant fuel air bomb lurking under feet DUBIIOUS
8) The fact that we are already seeing biological impact from a 1DegC rise over a few decades and the species can't cope with that? DUBIOUS or INEVITABLE evolution (take your pick)
9) That multiple studies cannot confirm the GreenHouse effect at NIGHT in the DESERT when there is no sun or water vapor present? FACT
10) That we've only had about 15 to 20 yrs of GOOD orbiting solar observatory studies to track long term variations in the TSI or solar spectrum TRUTH
11) The fact that the science has ALREADY been hijacked by political forces with a definite BROAD set of agendas including extinguishing fossil fuel use and Global Redistribution/Sustainability? Unscientifically OMINOUS
12) That the Hockey Stick can become common household knowledge even tho it never showed EXPECTED historic events in it's record? SAD
13) That every spokesmouth for the AGW crowd PURPOSELY obscures solar effects by ignoring the 1W/M2 surface increase since 1700 while actually LYING about "no solar influence" by trotting out 22 yr sunspot data? INTENTIONAL MISDIRECTION
14) The primary NASA Satellite guy dismisses satellite readings in favor of 12,000 global thermometers. - Not Science
15) That satellite data fails to follow the models for lower ATMOS heating predicted by AGW and isnt' as frightening as the Surface data? TRUE DAT
Want me to go on? I figure I got 30 or 40 of them if you break down the ones like disagreements on BASIC AGW parameters that go into the models.
No wonder Muller stated that it's NOT hard and it's NOT wrong to be a AGW Skeptic. There are no NAIVELY GULLIBLE scientists. So that probably leaves you out doesn't it?
It's good to take a glance at your compass once in awhile ROXy.. Don't think you've done that for --- oh about 150 years !!!!!
Thanks for re-CONFIRMING it, fecalhead. We can always count on you to respond in the most idiotic way possible.The only thing your posts "CONFIRM", fecalhead, is that you are a clueless, confused, bamboozled and brainwashed denier cult retard. Nobody with more than half a brain believes your denier cult myths, lies and braindead propaganda. All 15 of your 'points' are utter BS and have no connection to reality.
Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..
We already well understand the why. And we are learning more about the how every day.
Denial of known science by people such as yourself will change neither the evidence or facts. The physics was established by Tyndall over 150 years ago. Arrhenius did the math over 100 years ago. This discussion has been open for 150 years, the same amount of time that the discussion on evolution has been open. And the consensus on both is the same.
Let's recap shall we?
I tell you that I'm CONCERNED that the earth is warming.. You claim the answer was given 150 yrs ago before tree ring studies, before satellites, before computers, before a Global Mean Surface Annual Temp.
What science specifically am I "denying"?
1) The inaccuracies in the proxy temp studies. CONFIRMED
2) The bias and inaccuracies in the Surface Temp Sites CONFIRMED
3) THe leap to conclusions that CO2 is the cause of EVERYTHING like in those Oyster farming stories in the N.W CONFIRMED
4) The fact that CO2 forcing function is logarithmic and will saturate at higher levels FACT
Likewise, I am aware of no evidence which indicates substantive biases or inaccuracies in Surface Temperature Sites ²
Likewise, I am aware of no evidence which indicates substantive biases or inaccuracies in Surface Temperature Sites ²
Really?? You haven't read Mullers comments VALIDATING how biased and f''d up the surface data sensors are????