Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled -- ScienceDaily

Date:
January 26, 2014

Source:
University of Exeter

Summary:
The tropical carbon cycle has become twice as sensitive to temperature variations over the past 50 years, new research has revealed. The research shows that a one degree rise in tropical temperature leads to around two billion extra tons of carbon being released per year into the atmosphere from tropical ecosystems, compared with the same tropical warming in the 1960s and 1970s.

More at the link.

This is disturbing.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,898
Points
280
Typical of the climate hoax...when nature doesn't do what has been predicted...double down and claim that it is going to be even worse than was thought in the first place. Some people will never learn.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled -- ScienceDaily

Date:
January 26, 2014

Source:
University of Exeter

Summary:
The tropical carbon cycle has become twice as sensitive to temperature variations over the past 50 years, new research has revealed. The research shows that a one degree rise in tropical temperature leads to around two billion extra tons of carbon being released per year into the atmosphere from tropical ecosystems, compared with the same tropical warming in the 1960s and 1970s.
More at the link.

This is disturbing.
Damn, that was a stupid summary.

Tell me something, given the fact that carbon is a solid, and that it actually filters out particulate pollutants from the environment, why the fuck should anyone care how much of it is released? Could it be that they are actually talking about carbon dioxide, not carbon?

I really don't get why people who claim to have no political motives insist on using terms that only a drooling political hack would use. Is that what you found disturbing, or did you just hop on the political bandwagon they wanted you to get on?
 

gnarlylove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Along the Ohio River
It's clear that division and derision is the name of the game.

No one addressed any of the points made in the article. I'd doubt they even clicked it. I admit I haven't so I won't go spouting hot air into the room. What happened to a human dignity during discussion? Why must we insist on derision and corrosion the common bond between humans. Here's a few things we can all agree on:

1. Humans depend 100% on nature to live.
2. If something goes array in climate, then it brings problems like reoccurring droughts. This undeniably effects humans directly.
3. Indeed environmental problems arise daily resulting from a variety of factors, most are directly linked to human activity. No body denies majority of world forests are disappearing (28% of old-growth forests left worldwide) or that our plastics addiction is ruining marine life.
4. Since nature is under siege daily by human activity, there is less ability for the environment to filter out toxins whether its from HVC (highly volatile compounds) at fracking sites or hog sewage being spilled into water ways or crude MCHM in WV. It takes time to restore the balance. Sometimes effects are still reeling years after an event. Humanity is tearing down nature faster than it can rebuild and regenerate.
5. Since there is a net loss in nature with each year of human development, we are going to run into more problems that will inevitably culminate in world wide disaster if we don't get our act together and realize these simple facts I just listed. Work together, not name call.

Don't just call a link stupid without having a good reason or having viewed it. No one's opinion is worth that much. It demonstrates spineless tactics that don't have the wits to behave like adults about potentially threatening problems. No one denies that IF climate change gets worse (which it will as pop. rises) that we will have worldwide problems for the forseeable future. Suffering and panic would be global due to burrying our heads in the sand and shouting stupid slogans.
 
Last edited:
OP
orogenicman

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Well said, gl.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
It's clear that division and derision is the name of the game.

No one addressed any of the points made in the article. I'd doubt they even clicked it. I admit I haven't so I won't go spouting hot air into the room. What happened to a human dignity during discussion? Why must we insist on derision and corrosion the common bond between humans. Here's a few things we can all agree on:

1. Humans depend 100% on nature to live.
2. If something goes array in climate, then it brings problems like reoccurring droughts. This undeniably effects humans directly.
3. Indeed environmental problems arise daily resulting from a variety of factors, most are directly linked to human activity. No body denies majority of world forests are disappearing (28% of old-growth forests left worldwide) or that our plastics addiction is ruining marine life.
4. Since nature is under siege daily by human activity, there is less ability for the environment to filter out toxins whether its from HVC (highly volatile compounds) at fracking sites or hog sewage being spilled into water ways or crude MCHM in WV. It takes time to restore the balance. Sometimes effects are still reeling years after an event. Humanity is tearing down nature faster than it can rebuild and regenerate.
5. Since there is a net loss in nature with each year of human development, we are going to run into more problems that will inevitably culminate in world wide disaster if we don't get our act together and realize these simple facts I just listed. Work together, not name call.

Don't just call a link stupid without having a good reason or having viewed it. No one's opinion is worth that much. It demonstrates spineless tactics that don't have the wits to behave like adults about potentially threatening problems. No one denies that IF climate change gets worse (which it will as pop. rises) that we will have worldwide problems for the forseeable future. Suffering and panic would be global due to burrying our heads in the sand and shouting stupid slogans.
Were there points in the article? I didn't get past the error in the summary to read the damn thing.

Tell me something, do you understand the chemical difference between a diamond, which is pure carbon, and carbon dioxide, which isn't? If you do, why do you deliberately misstate the facts? If you don't, why the fuck should I treat you like you are sane?

Now, let me address you fake points.

1) humans are not 100% dependent on nature for survival. We have learned to live in, and adapt, nature to our needs. If we hadn't no one would be in the ISS and we would still be in the hunter gatherer stage.

2) The only possible repercussion of a climate change is drought? Seriously? What will happen to the water that covers 75% of the surface of this planet? will it all disappear? Drought is weather, and man has a proven ability to adapt to weather through various means. We can even adapt to climate, which is why the Eskimos are able to survive in the Arctic.

3) Do you know the difference between climate and ecosystems? Pollution is a problem, but it is not a problem that is caused by climate change, and should not be treated like it is. We need to approach each problem by focusing on the specific issues, not by coming up with a single way to screw everyone over by pretending we can wave a magic wand and fix everything.

4) Nature is not under siege. If we are at war with nature, it is winning. It cannot lose because, in the end, nature will still be there.

5) People said the same thing a few years ago. They were wrong then, you are wrong now.
 
Last edited:

gnarlylove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Along the Ohio River
Tell me something, do you understand the chemical difference between a diamond, which is pure carbon, and carbon dioxide, which isn't? If you do, why do you deliberately misstate the facts? If you don't, why the fuck should I treat you like you are sane?
Indeed, your belligerence shows me that I'm wasting my time typing this. The fact diamonds are not carbon dioxide demonstrates the lengths you go to avoid addressing climate instability. But when you are as intelligent and angry as you, debate becomes mud wrestling rather than relevant discussion so we can expect to see inane comments like that.

1) humans are not 100% dependent on nature for survival.
Then tell me what percent you depend on nature? 80% 2%?

All your energy comes from food. All food comes from nature and the artifical ingreidents are not outside the realm of nature: they still obey and follow normal physical and chemical laws.

Humans take what nature gave us and shape it into desired results. So for example, plastics come from petroleum, which came from the earth. Mix a variety of chemicals with oil and you can create harder or softer plastics. All we do is manipulate it. Everything you can list either came directly from the earth or is comprised of isolated compounds found in nature that were taken by man, tinkered with in a lab and made useful.

Heroin comes from the poppy. Heroin just like High Fructose Corn Syrup is just an isolated part of natural components. My point is everything humans do involve nature. Concrete walkways are in nature...just because there isn't a forest with monkeys swinging doesn't mean you aren't in nature.

2) The only possible repercussion of a climate change is drought? Seriously? What will happen to the water that covers 75% of the surface of this planet?
Obviously droughts effect humans.
Floods also effect humans.
These are known as changes in the climate. As the climate becomes less stable, these changes will increase. You can talk about the ocean but I'm talking about human life and where we live.
 
Last edited:

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
Tell me something, do you understand the chemical difference between a diamond, which is pure carbon, and carbon dioxide, which isn't? If you do, why do you deliberately misstate the facts? If you don't, why the fuck should I treat you like you are sane?
Indeed, your belligerence shows me that I'm wasting my time typing this. The fact diamonds are not carbon dioxide demonstrates the lengths you go to avoid addressing climate instability. But when you are as intelligent and angry as you, debate becomes mud wrestling rather than relevant discussion so we can expect to see inane comments like that.
You are wasting your time breathing, but you keep doing it.

Tell me something, why is climate instability something I want to avoid?

1) humans are not 100% dependent on nature for survival.
Then tell me what percent you depend on nature? 80% 2%?

All your energy comes from food. All food comes from nature and the artifical ingreidents are not outside the realm of nature: they still obey and follow normal physical and chemical laws.
Did you change your argument because you realized I was right? There is a difference between claiming that we depend on nature in a discussion about climate, and then arguing that everything that happens in the entire universe is subject to natural laws.

Humans take what nature gave us and shape it into desired results. So for example, plastics come from petroleum, which came from the earth. Mix a variety of chemicals with oil and you can create harder or softer plastics. All we do is manipulate it. Everything you can list either came directly from the earth or is comprised of isolated compounds found in nature that were taken by man, tinkered with in a lab and made useful.
Not everything, but you can keep pretending you are smarter than I am.

Heroin comes from the poppy. Heroin just like High Fructose Corn Syrup is just an isolated part of natural components. My point is everything humans do involve nature. Concrete walkways are in nature...just because there isn't a forest with monkeys swinging doesn't mean you aren't in nature.
Everything humans does involves the universe. However, by definition, everything humans accomplish is not part of nature.

the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people
Nature - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

2) The only possible repercussion of a climate change is drought? Seriously? What will happen to the water that covers 75% of the surface of this planet?
Obviously droughts effect humans.
Floods also effect humans.
These are known as changes in the climate. As the climate becomes less stable, these changes will increase. You can talk about the ocean but I'm talking about human life and where we live.
No, they are known as weather.

Before I laugh to hard, can you tell me when climate has been stable? What makes a stable climate, if it exists, better than an unstable one?
 

gnarlylove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Along the Ohio River
Does the economy depend on nature and raw materials? That's the reason you want to gag your reflex of disagreement to actually learn. As long as you remain in your economic bubble, you can say whatever you want without repercussion. When we loose old growth forests or climate stability we gain economic risk. Indeed, it's called systemic risk.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
Does the economy depend on nature and raw materials? That's the reason you want to gag your reflex of disagreement to actually learn. As long as you remain in your economic bubble, you can say whatever you want without repercussion. When we loose old growth forests or climate stability we gain economic risk. Indeed, it's called systemic risk.
Yes, we hit peak oil decades ago, and used up all the available land in the late 1970s. The resulting nuclear war wiped out roughly 90% of the population, and rendered the entire surface of the Earth uninhabitable.

Except it didn't.
 

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Does the economy depend on nature and raw materials? That's the reason you want to gag your reflex of disagreement to actually learn. As long as you remain in your economic bubble, you can say whatever you want without repercussion. When we loose old growth forests or climate stability we gain economic risk. Indeed, it's called systemic risk.
Yes, we hit peak oil decades ago, and used up all the available land in the late 1970s. The resulting nuclear war wiped out roughly 90% of the population, and rendered the entire surface of the Earth uninhabitable.

Except it didn't.
There's a lot we don't know and advancements are happening all the time. The people pointing out the problem before it is solved normally is someone that does exactly what you describe.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,827
Reaction score
19,628
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled -- ScienceDaily

Date:
January 26, 2014

Source:
University of Exeter

Summary:
The tropical carbon cycle has become twice as sensitive to temperature variations over the past 50 years, new research has revealed. The research shows that a one degree rise in tropical temperature leads to around two billion extra tons of carbon being released per year into the atmosphere from tropical ecosystems, compared with the same tropical warming in the 1960s and 1970s.

More at the link.

This is disturbing.





What a joke. Yet more science fiction from the climate mafia. Ever notice how these studies are entirely derived from computer models. Not a bit of field work. Lazy pricks.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,827
Reaction score
19,628
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Does the economy depend on nature and raw materials? That's the reason you want to gag your reflex of disagreement to actually learn. As long as you remain in your economic bubble, you can say whatever you want without repercussion. When we loose old growth forests or climate stability we gain economic risk. Indeed, it's called systemic risk.
Yes, we hit peak oil decades ago, and used up all the available land in the late 1970s. The resulting nuclear war wiped out roughly 90% of the population, and rendered the entire surface of the Earth uninhabitable.

Except it didn't.
There's a lot we don't know and advancements are happening all the time. The people pointing out the problem before it is solved normally is someone that does exactly what you describe.




The people pointing out the "problem" can't demonstrate an actual "problem", they surmise a "problem" that they can make money from by having the politicians in their pocket pass legislation to control this un-demonstrable "problem".
 

gnarlylove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Along the Ohio River
why was this forum determined to be the bastion of the ignoramus and ignoble comments? one can't make valid points without having laughable formulas applied to them. for example....

insert fake and stupid before each noun and belief and you've got yourself a debunked idea. make a point about the sky being blue and somehow that disproves that man has any relation to his air quality. friggin nuts and these people get chains of monkeys to link arms and throw feces. very popular tactic i admit but god damn it we are human beings and we ought to act like it.

the doubt about climate change has been manufactured by billions of dollars. the bottom line wins....but as i've pointed out elsewhere, nike, coke and others are recognizing climate change as a hazard to business. once business is on board for the sake of profits, then we will see skeptics peter out. we need unity, not hate.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
why was this forum determined to be the bastion of the ignoramus and ignoble comments? one can't make valid points without having laughable formulas applied to them. for example....

insert fake and stupid before each noun and belief and you've got yourself a debunked idea. make a point about the sky being blue and somehow that disproves that man has any relation to his air quality. friggin nuts and these people get chains of monkeys to link arms and throw feces. very popular tactic i admit but god damn it we are human beings and we ought to act like it.

the doubt about climate change has been manufactured by billions of dollars. the bottom line wins....but as i've pointed out elsewhere, nike, coke and others are recognizing climate change as a hazard to business. once business is on board for the sake of profits, then we will see skeptics peter out. we need unity, not hate.
You haven't made a single point, valid or invalid, in this thread. All you have done is spouted nonsense, and heaped scorn on me for not believing it. The facts are pretty simple, the Earth is coming out of an ice age. This, believe it or not, is a good thing.

Another fact, there is some evidence that humans are contributing to an acceleration of that process. There is a number of people that want you to believe that this is a bad thing, even though they can't actually supply any evidence of why it is bad. The weird thing is that, even if we assume a worst case scenario, there is absolute proof that it has been worst in the past.

What we have then is scientific evidence that climate change is occurring, that humans are accelerating it, but we have absolutely no proof that the result will be the "End of life as we know it." Even if it is, we have no proof that is a bad thing.

Yet people want you to believe that, if we don't do SOMETHING the planet will die. What they don't want you to do is ask how the something they want you to do is going to work. Why should we spend trillions of dollars, destroy the world economy, and do something, even though we don't know it will work, or if it is necessary.

On top of that we have the fact that humans are damned good at adapting to their environment, and finding solutions to problems when given time. Scott Adams has a rule he uses to explain this, he calls it the law of slow moving disasters. I actually pointed out one of the examples he uses sarcastically earlier, but you skipped right over thinking about it.

When I was a kid, it was generally assumed that the world would be destroyed by a global nuclear war. The world has been close to nuclear disaster a few times, but so far we've avoided all-out nuclear war.

The world was supposed to run out of oil by now, but instead we keep finding new ways to extract it from the ground. The United States has unexpectedly become a net provider of energy.

The debt problem in the United States was supposed to destroy the economy. Instead, the deficit is shrinking, the stock market is surging, and the price of gold is plummeting.

Social security was supposed to go broke. It might have some dents and scratches, but it looks as if it will be fine.

Offshoring was supposed to suck the last bit of manufacturing DNA out of the United States. Instead, robotics and other market forces have caused the trend to reverse.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico were supposed to overrun the United States with crime, steal American jobs and burden the social systems. Instead, the economy of Mexico started improving and immigration reversed.
Scott Adams Blog: Fact Checking: Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters 04/15/2013

Chill out, we will survive.

If we don't, then we don't deserve to, and the universe will find someone else to solve the problems.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,898
Points
280
Tell me gnarly, what do you believe is the ideal temperature for life on earth? Warmer? Cooler? What is the target we should be shooting for? Has there ever been a time on earth when the climate was stable and unchanging?

You rant on incessantly, but it is clear that you have never really thought about anything...when I read your posts, I swear I smell a whiff of bong water coming through my screen. You touch on a lot of topics, but never get below the surface of any of them....typical of the marijuana high.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
You know what is hilarious about this? Dirt boy posts a study that directly contradicts several of the primary tenants and claims of him and his friends regarding AGW, and he doesn't even realize it! :lol:

What we know from this study:

--Mother Nature has been increasing CO2 levels for at least 50 years.
--When these guys said that all other possible sources had been "accounted for," they were wrong.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Well, the ignoramouses are in full bray again. All flap-yap, no links backing anything that they claim, invectivive serving for what they consider proof. They would last about ten seconds with any of the proffesors teaching the science classes I attend at the university. Then they would be told to get the fuck out, wash their mouths out with soap, and not return.

This is todays 'Conservative'. Willfully ignorant, and hating anyone that is not.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top