Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled

[Old Rocks]

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!

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.

Once again you demonstrate your incredible ignorance on this subject. This is something that has been predicted well in advance, and now the predictions are being confirmed, just as the predictions concerning the increasing amounts of CH4 and CO2 from the arctic permafrost and clathrates are now being confirmed.

We have created multiple positive feedback loops by increasing the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. The scientists said this would happen, and now we see the evidence of it starting.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

That's an awful lot of mud you've slinging there. For someone bitching about people not having links, you sure are rambling on like an emotional school girl without anything to support your tirade.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled

A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
Earth system models project that the tropical land carbon sink will decrease in size in response to an increase in warming and drought during this century, probably causing a positive climate feedback1, 2. But available data3, 4, 5 are too limited at present to test the predicted changes in the tropical carbon balance in response to climate change. Long-term atmospheric carbon dioxide data provide a global record that integrates the interannual variability of the global carbon balance. Multiple lines of evidence6, 7, 8 demonstrate that most of this variability originates in the terrestrial biosphere. In particular, the year-to-year variations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate (CGR) are thought to be the result of fluctuations in the carbon fluxes of tropical land areas6, 9, 10. Recently, the response of CGR to tropical climate interannual variability was used to put a constraint on the sensitivity of tropical land carbon to climate change10. Here we use the long-term CGR record from Mauna Loa and the South Pole to show that the sensitivity of CGR to tropical temperature interannual variability has increased by a factor of 1.9 ± 0.3 in the past five decades. We find that this sensitivity was greater when tropical land regions experienced drier conditions. This suggests that the sensitivity of CGR to interannual temperature variations is regulated by moisture conditions, even though the direct correlation between CGR and tropical precipitation is weak9. We also find that present terrestrial carbon cycle models do not capture the observed enhancement in CGR sensitivity in the past five decades. More realistic model predictions of future carbon cycle and climate feedbacks require a better understanding of the processes driving the response of tropical ecosystems to drought and warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

What does seeping methane mean for the thawing Arctic? | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

After working for nearly ten years on the ground studying Siberian lakes, Katey Walter Anthony, an aquatic ecosystem ecologist at the University of Alaska, was flying over the Alaskan tundra in 2008 when she spotted something odd in the lakes there. She said, “There were large open areas in some lakes, which at that time of year should have been frozen solid. When we got to these sites on the ground, we saw large plumes of bubbling gas—it looked like these parts of the lake were boiling.” These upwellings were plumes of methane, seeping out of the ground and up through the water. The convection associated with the bubbling prevented the ice from freezing. Where does this methane come from? And does its escape mean more warming in the Arctic?

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Ocean Releasing "Significant" Amounts of Methane - Scientific American

The surface waters of the Arctic Ocean may be releasing "significant" amounts of methane into the atmosphere, researchers reported yesterday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Scientists flying a specially equipped plane over the region detected high concentrations of the heat-trapping gas close to the ocean surface during research flights in 2009 and 2010.

 

[SwimExpert]

Once again you demonstrate your incredible ignorance on this subject. This is something that has been predicted well in advance

Of course. Everything is predicted in advance. Every time something is counter to your dogma, it was "predicted in advance" and is actually all part of the plan.

Let's recap. Man made global warming:

--Causes record warm temperatures
--Causes record low temperatures
--Causes drought
--Causes record precipitation


What else do we know about man made global warming?

--We have documented all the CO2, and all the increases are man made
--We didn't actually document all the CO2, and it turns out great deal if it was naturally emitted.
--CO2 causes all the global warming we've seen in the past 50 years.
--Global warming actually leads to CO2 increases though natural mechanisms.



I've got news for yo Goldie Rocks. The men lied to you. The Emperor is just naked. There never were any magic clothes.

and now the predictions are being confirmed, just as the predictions concerning the increasing amounts of CH4 and CO2 from the arctic permafrost and clathrates are now being confirmed. We have created multiple positive feedback loops by increasing the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. The scientists said this would happen, and now we see the evidence of it starting.

Another thing: You're lying. This was not "confirming a prediction." This was research to account for inaccurate predictions. If you bothered to read the link, you'd know that.

 

[gnarlylove]

the problem isn't the evidence. that abounds. what is lacking is your ability TO CLICK A LINK AND READ IT. i know you can call a link stupid, but when you actually read it it is a lot harder to call the ideas stupid BECAUSE BASIC ARGUMENT tells us this is a very POOR approach to learning and solutions. when you refuse to agree, you are wasting your time by telling us you disagree. WE ALREADY KNOW but WE WANT TO KNOW WHY.

You can say whatever the hell you want on a computer, that doesn't mean you are right. it means you refuse to think outside your incredibly narrow minded perspective that is pretty much influenced by money and forgone conclusions that enable you to totally ignore ANY and ALL counter evidence. read the scientific basis for climate change! start with the 3 links above and we can provide more once you're done debunking those.

like i said, major companies are beginning to recognize you guys are not on their side: profits. they want higher profits and they realize climate instability brings great financial risks. indeed it is this very moment and big companies are taking action now.


man isn't causing 100% of CO2 and CO2 is good for plant life in moderate amounts but in excess it heats the planet--no intelligent scientists debates that fact. no one denies the erratic patterns in nature are becoming more obvious. its a result of less stability. please quit asking the question about ideal temp. that has nothing important to bear on these issues. we want a world in which humanity doesn't have to suffer over mistakes made by past willfully ignorant generations who squandered opportunities to improve the lot of the world.

 

[gnarlylove]

and the environment issue isn't the only an global risk. our financial institutions are breaking down each year and going belly up. America simply cannot sustain its budget. by 2030 some serious stuff will have to change or we will break America. increased rates in insurance among a host of other costly events is the direct result of climate change. take an environmental threat on top of unsound finance markets, risky non-transparent derivatives packages and an inability to come together and take action to thwart these issues, we have ourselves a genuine crisis that hits every possible aspect of humanity.

and it's doesn't help when windbags like yourself prevent genuine discussion on how to solve very real threats to the global economy and humanity itself. i salute your desire to stick to principles (disagree all the time) but they are causing harm to our political institutions. we can't get anything done and no one denies the economy sucks right now except the uber wealthy. what make you think unwavering disagreement helps solve problems? i'd love to compromise and reach some agreements but you make this impossible but intentionally remaining confused on the issues. reading selected sources that support your views and avoiding those that do not is a classic case of willful ignorance.

 

[SwimExpert]

the problem isn't the evidence. that abounds.

False. The evidence does not add up to your conclusions.

what is lacking is your ability TO CLICK A LINK AND READ IT.

False. You mistakenly believe that anyone who disagrees lacks knowledge. THAT is perhaps the most important thing you must learn to change.

but when you actually read it it is a lot harder to call the ideas stupid BECAUSE BASIC ARGUMENT tells us this is a very POOR approach to learning and solutions.

Completely nonsensical.

when you refuse to agree, you are wasting your time by telling us you disagree. WE ALREADY KNOW but WE WANT TO KNOW WHY.

Because your position is unsubstantiated. All the AGW crap is riddled with fallacious reasoning and arbitrary metrics.

You can say whatever the hell you want on a computer, that doesn't mean you are right. it means you refuse to think outside your incredibly narrow minded perspective that is pretty much influenced by money and forgone conclusions that enable you to totally ignore ANY and ALL counter evidence.

Hey, that's my line!

 

[gnarlylove]

you say there is no evidence but you won't look at any of the links. those links contain substantial scientific rigor to support climate change through field studies. by not addressing the points in the link you are failing to defend your position that these articles have no merit. if you disagree with the claims made in the scientific articles, then tell us why--dismissing them because you refuse to read them is diseased thinking.

by avoiding those links, you are avoiding any real discussion that there is evidence for climate change. you are also choosing a brand of ignorance, which wouldn't be so bad if you didn't denounce climate change policy. we should not create policy based on rhetoric that has no defensible argument. and you have no defensible argument. if so, please reason in your own words.

 

[SwimExpert]

you say there is no evidence but you won't look at any of the links.

False.

those links contain substantial scientific rigor to support climate change through field studies.

"Climate change" eh? Nope, you got to do better than that. You get no more attention until you improve.

 

[Abraham3]

you say there is no evidence but you won't look at any of the links.

False.

those links contain substantial scientific rigor to support climate change through field studies.

"Climate change" eh? Nope, you got to do better than that. You get no more attention until you improve.

Jeez, you must be looking to set new records in uselessness. Why would ANYONE here care whether or not they got attention from YOU? You DON'T know science, in general or in any particular. You do NOTHING but throw insults and weasel words and try to look clever. You haven't advanced one single conversation on this site by one single iota since you got here.

Gifted... sheesh!

1) Global temperatures have been rising at an unprecedented rate for the last 150 years.
2) The temperature trend closely follows the CO2 trend.
3) The calculated warming, direct and indirect, from the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere very closely matches that observed.
4) Multiple analyses identify the source of the added CO2 as fossil fuel combustion.

False. The evidence does not add up to your conclusions.

False. You mistakenly believe that anyone who disagrees lacks knowledge. THAT is perhaps the most important thing you must learn to change.

Completely nonsensical.

Because your position is unsubstantiated. All the AGW crap is riddled with fallacious reasoning and arbitrary metrics.

Defend your comments with regards to observations 1-4.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why would ANYONE here care whether or not they got attention from YOU?

You obviously do.

 

[gnarlylove]

the problem with swim is it thinks it has value. some bible camp early on must have drilled this in. so as it got older, swim still believed swim had value but never learned ANYTHING. anyone can say false this and "ain't gonna touch that cuz i'm stupid" but it takes learning and value to defend your disagreements and arguments.

let me show you a reasonable argument
1 swim is mortal
2. all mortals die
3. therefore swim will die, and thank god!

now the "thank god" part is unnecessary and is not part of the argument. can you see how stupid comments have no role in advancing any human discussion? i don't want you to die and that takes away from the whole argument and renders it worthless, just like ALL of your comments.

 

[westwall]

the problem isn't the evidence. that abounds. what is lacking is your ability TO CLICK A LINK AND READ IT. i know you can call a link stupid, but when you actually read it it is a lot harder to call the ideas stupid BECAUSE BASIC ARGUMENT tells us this is a very POOR approach to learning and solutions. when you refuse to agree, you are wasting your time by telling us you disagree. WE ALREADY KNOW but WE WANT TO KNOW WHY.

You can say whatever the hell you want on a computer, that doesn't mean you are right. it means you refuse to think outside your incredibly narrow minded perspective that is pretty much influenced by money and forgone conclusions that enable you to totally ignore ANY and ALL counter evidence. read the scientific basis for climate change! start with the 3 links above and we can provide more once you're done debunking those.

like i said, major companies are beginning to recognize you guys are not on their side: profits. they want higher profits and they realize climate instability brings great financial risks. indeed it is this very moment and big companies are taking action now.


man isn't causing 100% of CO2 and CO2 is good for plant life in moderate amounts but in excess it heats the planet--no intelligent scientists debates that fact. no one denies the erratic patterns in nature are becoming more obvious. its a result of less stability. please quit asking the question about ideal temp. that has nothing important to bear on these issues. we want a world in which humanity doesn't have to suffer over mistakes made by past willfully ignorant generations who squandered opportunities to improve the lot of the world.

Ummmm, that's where you're wrong bucko. There is ZERO empirical evidence (look that term up), there is only computer model "evidence". Which is nothing more than science fiction.

 

[orogenicman]

the problem isn't the evidence. that abounds. what is lacking is your ability TO CLICK A LINK AND READ IT. i know you can call a link stupid, but when you actually read it it is a lot harder to call the ideas stupid BECAUSE BASIC ARGUMENT tells us this is a very POOR approach to learning and solutions. when you refuse to agree, you are wasting your time by telling us you disagree. WE ALREADY KNOW but WE WANT TO KNOW WHY.

You can say whatever the hell you want on a computer, that doesn't mean you are right. it means you refuse to think outside your incredibly narrow minded perspective that is pretty much influenced by money and forgone conclusions that enable you to totally ignore ANY and ALL counter evidence. read the scientific basis for climate change! start with the 3 links above and we can provide more once you're done debunking those.

like i said, major companies are beginning to recognize you guys are not on their side: profits. they want higher profits and they realize climate instability brings great financial risks. indeed it is this very moment and big companies are taking action now.


man isn't causing 100% of CO2 and CO2 is good for plant life in moderate amounts but in excess it heats the planet--no intelligent scientists debates that fact. no one denies the erratic patterns in nature are becoming more obvious. its a result of less stability. please quit asking the question about ideal temp. that has nothing important to bear on these issues. we want a world in which humanity doesn't have to suffer over mistakes made by past willfully ignorant generations who squandered opportunities to improve the lot of the world.

Ummmm, that's where you're wrong bucko. There is ZERO empirical evidence (look that term up), there is only computer model "evidence". Which is nothing more than science fiction.

Wow, someone must have broken your GI Joe doll.

 

[westwall]

you say there is no evidence but you won't look at any of the links. those links contain substantial scientific rigor to support climate change through field studies. by not addressing the points in the link you are failing to defend your position that these articles have no merit. if you disagree with the claims made in the scientific articles, then tell us why--dismissing them because you refuse to read them is diseased thinking.

by avoiding those links, you are avoiding any real discussion that there is evidence for climate change. you are also choosing a brand of ignorance, which wouldn't be so bad if you didn't denounce climate change policy. we should not create policy based on rhetoric that has no defensible argument. and you have no defensible argument. if so, please reason in your own words.

No, they don't. They are tired old links that oldie has been spewing for years. they are either not germane to the point he's trying to make or they are simply wrong in their assumptions. They are nothing new. As I have stated before, computer model evidence....isn't. It is science fiction.

 

[westwall]

the problem isn't the evidence. that abounds. what is lacking is your ability TO CLICK A LINK AND READ IT. i know you can call a link stupid, but when you actually read it it is a lot harder to call the ideas stupid BECAUSE BASIC ARGUMENT tells us this is a very POOR approach to learning and solutions. when you refuse to agree, you are wasting your time by telling us you disagree. WE ALREADY KNOW but WE WANT TO KNOW WHY.

You can say whatever the hell you want on a computer, that doesn't mean you are right. it means you refuse to think outside your incredibly narrow minded perspective that is pretty much influenced by money and forgone conclusions that enable you to totally ignore ANY and ALL counter evidence. read the scientific basis for climate change! start with the 3 links above and we can provide more once you're done debunking those.

like i said, major companies are beginning to recognize you guys are not on their side: profits. they want higher profits and they realize climate instability brings great financial risks. indeed it is this very moment and big companies are taking action now.


man isn't causing 100% of CO2 and CO2 is good for plant life in moderate amounts but in excess it heats the planet--no intelligent scientists debates that fact. no one denies the erratic patterns in nature are becoming more obvious. its a result of less stability. please quit asking the question about ideal temp. that has nothing important to bear on these issues. we want a world in which humanity doesn't have to suffer over mistakes made by past willfully ignorant generations who squandered opportunities to improve the lot of the world.

Ummmm, that's where you're wrong bucko. There is ZERO empirical evidence (look that term up), there is only computer model "evidence". Which is nothing more than science fiction.

Wow, someone must have broken your GI Joe doll.

Do you have a point in there somewhere? Finished your remedial math class yet?

 

[orogenicman]

Ummmm, that's where you're wrong bucko. There is ZERO empirical evidence (look that term up), there is only computer model "evidence". Which is nothing more than science fiction.

Wow, someone must have broken your GI Joe doll.

Do you have a point in there somewhere? Finished your remedial math class yet?

guy blows up a gi joe doll - Bing Videos

 

[westwall]

Wow, someone must have broken your GI Joe doll.

Do you have a point in there somewhere? Finished your remedial math class yet?

guy blows up a gi joe doll - Bing Videos

Once again, do you have a point, or are you merely trolling because you can't defend your statements?