What REALLY terrifies climate scientists: "Feedback"

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Climate scientists have confidence in a few things, for instance: the minimum amount of warming the climate will experience in the next 100 years, the primary driver of the observed, rapid warming, and the fact that the oceans are acidifying.

But, what terrifies scientists is not "the known", but rather, "the unknown". Scientists are worried that there exist certain thresholds, past which there will be runaway effects. This is related to the idea of "feedback loops". For instance, as more land and sea ice disappears, the climate will warm more quickly, causing even faster disappearance of land and sea ice... and so on.

Now that scientists have had more time to study our warming climate, they are starting to find these feedback loops in action. They are discovering, slowly but surely, that "albedo feedback" is causing an acceleration in the loss of arctic sea ice: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170906103622.htm

Now, scientists have always postulated this would be the case, but they have needed time to build the evidence that this is true. They now have it.

There are other feedback loops to consider, such as melting tundra and ocean acidification. While the major economies of the world dither to preserve short-term growth, the scientists of the world are banging pots and pans and sounding the sirens that, by the time they can convince even the most scientifically illiterate person of the dangers of inaction on climate change, it will be too late.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate scientists have confidence in a few things, for instance: the minimum amount of warming the climate will experience in the next 100 years, the primary driver of the observed, rapid warming, and the fact that the oceans are acidifying.

But, what terrifies scientists is not "the known", but rather, "the unknown". Scientists are worried that there exist certain thresholds, past which there will be runaway effects. This is related to the idea of "feedback loops". For instance, as more land and sea ice disappears, the climate will warm more quickly, causing even faster disappearance of land and sea ice... and so on.

Now that scientists have had more time to study our warming climate, they are starting to find these feedback loops in action. They are discovering, slowly but surely, that "albedo feedback" is causing an acceleration in the loss of arctic sea ice: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170906103622.htm

Now, scientists have always postulated this would be the case, but they have needed time to build the evidence that this is true. They now have it.

There are other feedback loops to consider, such as melting tundra and ocean acidification. While the major economies of the world dither to preserve short-term growth, the scientists of the world are banging pots and pans and sounding the sirens that, by the time they can convince even the most scientifically illiterate person of the dangers of inaction on climate change, it will be too late.

These apocalyptic effects are STILL not "settled science". And this is why there is no "consensus" on GW. Because EACH QUESTION ---- requires a "separate consensus"..

In the examples you gave -- there are both positive and negative effects. When you see reduced Arctic sea ice, there is a major change in albedo. But there is also a NEW MASSIVE opportunity to sink and sequester MASSIVE amounts of atmospheric CO2 into the perfectly open clear COLD water that CO2 enjoys. Much like planting a similar size virgin forest.

Same deal with ocean acidification. Warm water doesn't hold or uptake as much CO2 as colder water. So as the SURFACE warms on the oceans, the less CO2 is absorbed.

CLOUDS and water vapor are the bigger debate, and so on....

 

[flacaltenn]

And --- I'm kinda doubting at this point about any clear headed scientist being terrified. There are a couple dozen "activists" that led the charge to TERRIFY the public and political establishment, but I don't think that they actually believe many of the LEAPS to conclusions that they've pushed since the 80s. And thus --- THEY are not even "terrified".. The days of "shock and awe" for the GW crazy train are way behind us. NOW -- we gotta do the real work...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Climate scientists have confidence in a few things, for instance: the minimum amount of warming the climate will experience in the next 100 years, the primary driver of the observed, rapid warming, and the fact that the oceans are acidifying.

But, what terrifies scientists is not "the known", but rather, "the unknown". Scientists are worried that there exist certain thresholds, past which there will be runaway effects. This is related to the idea of "feedback loops". For instance, as more land and sea ice disappears, the climate will warm more quickly, causing even faster disappearance of land and sea ice... and so on.

Now that scientists have had more time to study our warming climate, they are starting to find these feedback loops in action. They are discovering, slowly but surely, that "albedo feedback" is causing an acceleration in the loss of arctic sea ice: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170906103622.htm

Now, scientists have always postulated this would be the case, but they have needed time to build the evidence that this is true. They now have it.

There are other feedback loops to consider, such as melting tundra and ocean acidification. While the major economies of the world dither to preserve short-term growth, the scientists of the world are banging pots and pans and sounding the sirens that, by the time they can convince even the most scientifically illiterate person of the dangers of inaction on climate change, it will be too late.

These apocalyptic effects are STILL not "settled science". And this is why there is no "consensus" on GW. Because EACH QUESTION ---- requires a "separate consensus"..

In the examples you gave -- there are both positive and negative effects. When you see reduced Arctic sea ice, there is a major change in albedo. But there is also a NEW MASSIVE opportunity to sink and sequester MASSIVE amounts of atmospheric CO2 into the perfectly open clear COLD water that CO2 enjoys. Much like planting a similar size virgin forest.

Same deal with ocean acidification. Warm water doesn't hold or uptake as much CO2 as colder water. So as the SURFACE warms on the oceans, the less CO2 is absorbed.

CLOUDS and water vapor are the bigger debate, and so on....

"But there is also a NEW MASSIVE opportunity to sink and sequester MASSIVE amounts of atmospheric CO2 into the perfectly open clear COLD water that CO2 enjoys"

Yes, scientists thought of that. The fact is that the amount of water comtained in all the arctic ice is such a tiny amount compared to that already in the oceans, that the effect you suggest is negligible.

 

[Pete7469]

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate scientists have confidence in a few things, for instance: the minimum amount of warming the climate will experience in the next 100 years, the primary driver of the observed, rapid warming, and the fact that the oceans are acidifying.

But, what terrifies scientists is not "the known", but rather, "the unknown". Scientists are worried that there exist certain thresholds, past which there will be runaway effects. This is related to the idea of "feedback loops". For instance, as more land and sea ice disappears, the climate will warm more quickly, causing even faster disappearance of land and sea ice... and so on.

Now that scientists have had more time to study our warming climate, they are starting to find these feedback loops in action. They are discovering, slowly but surely, that "albedo feedback" is causing an acceleration in the loss of arctic sea ice: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170906103622.htm

Now, scientists have always postulated this would be the case, but they have needed time to build the evidence that this is true. They now have it.

There are other feedback loops to consider, such as melting tundra and ocean acidification. While the major economies of the world dither to preserve short-term growth, the scientists of the world are banging pots and pans and sounding the sirens that, by the time they can convince even the most scientifically illiterate person of the dangers of inaction on climate change, it will be too late.

These apocalyptic effects are STILL not "settled science". And this is why there is no "consensus" on GW. Because EACH QUESTION ---- requires a "separate consensus"..

In the examples you gave -- there are both positive and negative effects. When you see reduced Arctic sea ice, there is a major change in albedo. But there is also a NEW MASSIVE opportunity to sink and sequester MASSIVE amounts of atmospheric CO2 into the perfectly open clear COLD water that CO2 enjoys. Much like planting a similar size virgin forest.

Same deal with ocean acidification. Warm water doesn't hold or uptake as much CO2 as colder water. So as the SURFACE warms on the oceans, the less CO2 is absorbed.

CLOUDS and water vapor are the bigger debate, and so on....

"But there is also a NEW MASSIVE opportunity to sink and sequester MASSIVE amounts of atmospheric CO2 into the perfectly open clear COLD water that CO2 enjoys"

Yes, scientists thought of that. The fact is that the amount of water comtained in all the arctic ice is such a tiny amount compared to that already in the oceans, that the effect you suggest is negligible.

Nope.. Biggest CO2 sink on the planet EVERY year is nice open COLD Southern Ocean. It's what keeps that massive amount of CO2 that NATURE pollutes with every year in check. 20 times the load that man sends up. So opening up the Arctic Ocean in large amounts is NOT a trivial "negative feedback". Probably offsets any decadal tundra melting effects.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And --- I'm kinda doubting at this point about any clear headed scientist being terrified. There are a couple dozen "activists" that led the charge to TERRIFY the public and political establishment, but I don't think that they actually believe many of the LEAPS to conclusions that they've pushed since the 80s. And thus --- THEY are not even "terrified".. The days of "shock and awe" for the GW crazy train are way behind us. NOW -- we gotta do the real work...

And --- I'm kinda doubting at this point about any clear headed scientist being terrified. There are a couple dozen "activists" that led the charge to TERRIFY the public and political establishment, but I don't think that they actually believe many of the LEAPS to conclusions that they've pushed since the 80s. And thus --- THEY are not even "terrified".. The days of "shock and awe" for the GW crazy train are way behind us. NOW -- we gotta do the real work...

You don't have to languish in your doubt. You can pretty much see scientists giving grave warnings about these feedback loops and thresholds everywhere you look. Scientists don't typically use the flowery, bombastic language of politicians or message board pundits, so these grave warnings are about as urgent and hyperbolic in their language as you are going to get from scientists attempting to speak formally.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, scientists thought of that. The fact is that the amount of water comtained in all the arctic ice is such a tiny amount compared to that already in the oceans, that the effect you suggest is negligible.

Actually, I don't know if you understood the proposition. It has NOTHING to do with the water content of the ice that disappeared. It's the fact that the PRESENCE of the ice was blocking the ability of atmospheric CO2 to permeate and mix into the COLD water below. Once that ice cover disappears -- it's the most efficient CO2 sinking source that we have on the planet. Once in the water, MUCH gets sequestered down in Davy Jones locker and is trapped for a very long time.

 

[Pete7469]

flacaltenn is one of the most educated and informed persons on the forum about the MMGW scam. If you're going to debate him, you better bring your A game.

 

[flacaltenn]

And --- I'm kinda doubting at this point about any clear headed scientist being terrified. There are a couple dozen "activists" that led the charge to TERRIFY the public and political establishment, but I don't think that they actually believe many of the LEAPS to conclusions that they've pushed since the 80s. And thus --- THEY are not even "terrified".. The days of "shock and awe" for the GW crazy train are way behind us. NOW -- we gotta do the real work...

And --- I'm kinda doubting at this point about any clear headed scientist being terrified. There are a couple dozen "activists" that led the charge to TERRIFY the public and political establishment, but I don't think that they actually believe many of the LEAPS to conclusions that they've pushed since the 80s. And thus --- THEY are not even "terrified".. The days of "shock and awe" for the GW crazy train are way behind us. NOW -- we gotta do the real work...

You don't have to languish in your doubt. You can pretty much see scientists giving grave warnings about these feedback loops and thresholds everywhere you look. Scientists don't typically use the flowery, bombastic language of politicians or message board pundits, so these grave warnings are about as urgent and hyperbolic in their language as you are going to get from scientists attempting to speak formally.

Seems to me that Climate Scientists are a less arrogant than they were 20 years ago. They are not now revising the latest estimates of the temperature anomaly in 2100 MONTHLY --- like they were in the 80s and 90s. And MOST of the 50 and 100 years predictions have been constantly revised DOWN since the 80s. That doesn't indicate to ME -- an INCREASING level of personal anxiety..

When was the latest GUESS at the temperature anomaly in 2100? I haven't seen a single serious one for years now..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, scientists thought of that. The fact is that the amount of water comtained in all the arctic ice is such a tiny amount compared to that already in the oceans, that the effect you suggest is negligible.

Actually, I don't know if you understood the proposition. It has NOTHING to do with the water content of the ice that disappeared. It's the fact that the PRESENCE of the ice was blocking the ability of atmospheric CO2 to permeate and mix into the COLD water below. Once that ice cover disappears -- it's the most efficient CO2 sinking source that we have on the planet. Once in the water, MUCH gets sequestered down in Davy Jones locker and is trapped for a very long tim

Yes, scientists thought of that. The fact is that the amount of water comtained in all the arctic ice is such a tiny amount compared to that already in the oceans, that the effect you suggest is negligible.

Actually, I don't know if you understood the proposition. It has NOTHING to do with the water content of the ice that disappeared. It's the fact that the PRESENCE of the ice was blocking the ability of atmospheric CO2 to permeate and mix into the COLD water below. Once that ice cover disappears -- it's the most efficient CO2 sinking source that we have on the planet. Once in the water, MUCH gets sequestered down in Davy Jones locker and is trapped for a very long time.

That seems nonsensical, given that the gasses in our atmosphere are constantly circulating. I did a search for any published science which shows that increased surface area of the ocean due to melting sea ice would lead to significantly increased carbon sink, and I found exactly none. Could you please point me to the research which led you to this conclusion?

It also seems absurd that lifelong scientists would not be taking this into account. Could you also provide some sort of reasoning that would help a person to believe that a layman could come up with this before lifelong scientists did?

That seems nonsensical, given that the gasses in our atmosphere are constantly circulating. I did a search for any science which shows that increased surface area of the ocean due to loss of sea ice would lead to significantly increased carbon sink, and I found exactly none. Could you please point me to the research which led you to this conclusion?

It also seems absurd that lifelong scientists would not be taking this into account. Could you also provide some sort of reasoning that would help a person to believe that a layman could come up with this before lifelong scientists did?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The two that concerns me are
1. The rain forest sinks like the amazon that have seen 3 droughts in the past 17 years alone that were 100 to 500 year events.
2. Our ocean sinks.

If either gives out = bad for humanity.

 

[Pete7469]

The only think that "terrifies" so called climate scientists is that their government funds will be cut off.

 

[Zander]

It's Delayed onset Global Super Hot Times!!!

Shortened to "DOG- SHIT".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And --- I'm kinda doubting at this point about any clear headed scientist being terrified. There are a couple dozen "activists" that led the charge to TERRIFY the public and political establishment, but I don't think that they actually believe many of the LEAPS to conclusions that they've pushed since the 80s. And thus --- THEY are not even "terrified".. The days of "shock and awe" for the GW crazy train are way behind us. NOW -- we gotta do the real work...

And --- I'm kinda doubting at this point about any clear headed scientist being terrified. There are a couple dozen "activists" that led the charge to TERRIFY the public and political establishment, but I don't think that they actually believe many of the LEAPS to conclusions that they've pushed since the 80s. And thus --- THEY are not even "terrified".. The days of "shock and awe" for the GW crazy train are way behind us. NOW -- we gotta do the real work...

You don't have to languish in your doubt. You can pretty much see scientists giving grave warnings about these feedback loops and thresholds everywhere you look. Scientists don't typically use the flowery, bombastic language of politicians or message board pundits, so these grave warnings are about as urgent and hyperbolic in their language as you are going to get from scientists attempting to speak formally.

Seems to me that Climate Scientists are a less arrogant than they were 20 years ago. They are not now revising the latest estimates of the temperature anomaly in 2100 MONTHLY --- like they were in the 80s and 90s. And MOST of the 50 and 100 years predictions have been constantly revised DOWN since the 80s. That doesn't indicate to ME -- an INCREASING level of personal anxiety..

When was the latest GUESS at the temperature anomaly in 2100? I haven't seen a single serious one for years now..

The only think that "terrifies" so called climate scientists is that their government funds will be cut off.

This seems absurd, given that climate scientists (or any scientists) would still study climate, regardless of their funding.

 

[Pete7469]

This seems absurd, given that climate scientists (or any scientists) would still study climate, regardless of their funding.

Right...

They would do this for free out of the goodness of their heart....

Stop huffing paint....

No, never mind...

Inhale it deeper and hold it in longer. You can't have more than a few brain cells left because you obviously have no frontal lobe.

These assholes have cherry jobs for life at universities where they can write their own budgets and government keeps funding them. Yet you "think" (LOL) that everyone who refutes them is somehow corrupted.

Get a grip bed wetter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once the EnviroMarxists successfully use "climate change" to wrap their hands around the throat of the US economy, all of these horrific effects will be little more than a pleasant memory. Venezuela will look like Paradise in comparison. The AGW scammers will laugh and ask if we remember being worried about cow fart runaway feedbacks

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, scientists thought of that. The fact is that the amount of water comtained in all the arctic ice is such a tiny amount compared to that already in the oceans, that the effect you suggest is negligible.

Actually, I don't know if you understood the proposition. It has NOTHING to do with the water content of the ice that disappeared. It's the fact that the PRESENCE of the ice was blocking the ability of atmospheric CO2 to permeate and mix into the COLD water below. Once that ice cover disappears -- it's the most efficient CO2 sinking source that we have on the planet. Once in the water, MUCH gets sequestered down in Davy Jones locker and is trapped for a very long tim

Yes, scientists thought of that. The fact is that the amount of water comtained in all the arctic ice is such a tiny amount compared to that already in the oceans, that the effect you suggest is negligible.

Actually, I don't know if you understood the proposition. It has NOTHING to do with the water content of the ice that disappeared. It's the fact that the PRESENCE of the ice was blocking the ability of atmospheric CO2 to permeate and mix into the COLD water below. Once that ice cover disappears -- it's the most efficient CO2 sinking source that we have on the planet. Once in the water, MUCH gets sequestered down in Davy Jones locker and is trapped for a very long time.

That seems nonsensical, given that the gasses in our atmosphere are constantly circulating. I did a search for any published science which shows that increased surface area of the ocean due to melting sea ice would lead to significantly increased carbon sink, and I found exactly none. Could you please point me to the research which led you to this conclusion?

It also seems absurd that lifelong scientists would not be taking this into account. Could you also provide some sort of reasoning that would help a person to believe that a layman could come up with this before lifelong scientists did?

That seems nonsensical, given that the gasses in our atmosphere are constantly circulating. I did a search for any science which shows that increased surface area of the ocean due to loss of sea ice would lead to significantly increased carbon sink, and I found exactly none. Could you please point me to the research which led you to this conclusion?

It also seems absurd that lifelong scientists would not be taking this into account. Could you also provide some sort of reasoning that would help a person to believe that a layman could come up with this before lifelong scientists did?

Of course the appropriate scientists know this. That's why it's a STILL a debate and not settled science.

I'll be glad to help. And back up my assertions. Start here.

Revived oceanic CO2 uptake | ETH Zurich

Revived oceanic CO2 uptake
10.09.2015 | News
By: Peter Rüegg | 1 Comment
A decade ago scientists feared that the ability of the Southern Ocean to absorb additional atmospheric CO2 would soon be stalled. But the analysis of more recent observations show that this carbon sink reinvigorated during the past decade.

Breathe in, breathe out, in, out… Like a giant lung, the Southern Ocean seasonally absorbs vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and releases it back later in the year. But on an annual average the seas surrounding Antarctica absorb significantly more CO2 than they release. Most importantly, these seas remove a large part of the CO2 that human activities emit into the atmosphere, thereby slowing down the growth of this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, lessening the rate of climate change. Although the Southern Ocean represents no more than a quarter of the total surface of the world’s oceans, it accounts for 40 percent of the global oceanic uptake of that man-made CO2.
From the year 2005, however, scientists pointed out that the Southern Ocean carbon sink might have begun to "saturate”. Based on model results, they suggested that it had not increased since the late 1980s. This was unexpected as one had assumed that a direct relationship existed between the magnitude of the carbon sink and the concentration of atmospheric CO2: the higher the concentration of CO2 in the air, the greater the amount of CO2 absorbed by the sea.
Now the tables have turned. Since the beginning of the millennium the Southern Ocean carbon sink has become much stronger, thereby regaining its expected strength. This is demonstrated by an international research team led by Nicolas Gruber, a professor of environmental physics at ETH Zurich, and his postdoc Peter Landschützer in a study recently published in Science.

Now ---- for your homework, take those "revised" numbers for CO2 absorption (like 3.5 or 4.0 mol/m2/yr and look up what a brand new VIRGIN forest sinks in terms of CO2 per year per meter squared...

When the Arctic Ice dissipates, there's a giant sucking sound for new CO2 absorption ability...

 

[Pete7469]

It's Delayed onset Global Super Hot Times!!!

Shortened to "DOG- SHIT".

Delayed Onset Global Super Hot Immediate Times.

Good acronym though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This seems absurd, given that climate scientists (or any scientists) would still study climate, regardless of their funding.

Right...

They would do this for free out of the goodness of their heart....

Stop huffing paint....

No, never mind...

Inhale it deeper and hold it in longer. You can't have more than a few brain cells left because you obviously have no frontal lobe.

These assholes have cherry jobs for life at universities where they can write their own budgets and government keeps funding them. Yet you "think" (LOL) that everyone who refutes them is somehow corrupted.

Get a grip bed wetter.

They do it out of a honest search for truth, just like virtually all scientists. You just reserve special disdain for climate scientists, because you are beholden to your own biases and superstitions. Your accusations are absurd, and , trust me, you will not be causing any damage to anyone's credibility but your own by repeating them.