What REALLY terrifies climate scientists: "Feedback"

[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?

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...

That's nice. I have no desire to try to convince a blog-educated denier that he is wrong, nor will I breathe any life into the idea that he is undermining accepted theories without doing any actual research or by substituting his own superstitions for an actual education. Your freakish denial and tendency to believe you have "scooped" the world's scientists by misrepresenting their own work is absurd and embarrassing to watch, and you guys will die off eventually.

Back to the topic: while scientists are not predicting that Earth will become Venus, they are worried what runaway warming will do to the well-being of humans and to their economies. This, of course, is a tough sell, given the selfishness of humans.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

I have credibility?

Wow...

Thanks. I didn't even want any

I have disdain for bullshit artists, pseudo scientists who insist their non-peer reviewed studies need more funding and that anyone who refutes them is a paid shill of exxon. Over and over all of you bed wetters who come across this forum preaching MMGW zealotry are systematically destroyed via high school graduates armed by Google, but I'm going to lose "credibility" by mocking your bullshit cut and paste thread?

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

I have credibility?

Wow...

Thanks. I didn't even want any

I have disdain for bullshit artists, pseudo scientists who insist their non-peer reviewed studies need more funding and that anyone who refutes them is a paid shill of exxon. Over and over all of you bed wetters who come across this forum preaching MMGW zealotry are systematically destroyed via high school graduates armed by Google, but I'm going to lose "credibility" by mocking your bullshit cut and paste thread?

View attachment 148092 .

Your post is freakish and paranoid. Nothing about the topic of this thread is any of that. I will assume your frustration arises from your own abject ignorance and inability to make informed comments on a topic that you know less than nothing about, and in no way derives from any personal disdain for me.

May I suggest you do yourself a favor and shield yourself from topics which trigger your colon allergies? You might be a happier guy if you did.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Hence them getting caught faking data

 

[Pete7469]

Your post is freakish and paranoid. Nothing about the topic of this thread is any of that. I will assume your frustration arises from your own abject ignorance and inability to make informed comments on a topic that you know less than nothing about, and in no way derives from any personal disdain for me.

May I suggest you do yourself a favor and shield yourself from topics which trigger your colon allergies? You might be a happier guy if you did.

Nothing makes me happier than mocking libturd tools like you.

You've already been refuted, that work isn't my specialty. Mocking leftist apparatchiks is what I do, and you've been effectively trolled. Your thread is just more cut/paste pseudo scientific absurdity that gets laughed at every day. If you want someone to pat you on the back and parrot asinine drivel like you do, you've come to the wrong place.

USMB is not an echo chamber like almost every other forum.

Try Huffpo.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your post is freakish and paranoid. Nothing about the topic of this thread is any of that. I will assume your frustration arises from your own abject ignorance and inability to make informed comments on a topic that you know less than nothing about, and in no way derives from any personal disdain for me.

May I suggest you do yourself a favor and shield yourself from topics which trigger your colon allergies? You might be a happier guy if you did.

Nothing makes me happier than mocking libturd tools like you.

You've already been refuted, that work isn't my specialty. Mocking leftist apparatchiks is what I do, and you've been effectively trolled. Your thread is just more cut/paste pseudo scientific absurdity that gets laughed at every day. If you want someone to pat you on the back and parrot asinine drivel like you do, you've come to the wrong place.

USMB is not an echo chamber like almost every other forum.

Try Huffpo.

Well, that seems like the hobby of a stupid and insecure person. But it does save you from all of the hard work of "learning things" and "knowing things". Enjoy your neurotic cackling, I will leave you to it.

 

[Pete7469]

Well, that seems like the hobby of a stupid and insecure person. But it does save you from all of the hard work of "learning things" and "knowing things". Enjoy your neurotic cackling, I will leave you to it.

LOL!!!

"LEARNING"???? Did you seriously just imply you have "information" to divulge that no one else has ever posted?

Listen here bed wetter, even though I realize you're incapable of "learning" anything.

You "KNOW" absolutely nothing.

You can not "know" Santa Claus flies around the world in 24 hours behind magic reindeer,

You can't "know" that human production of CO2, which accounts for MAYBE %3 (or less) of all atmospheric CO2 is a "problem" when CO2 only accounts for MAYBE %3 of all the so called "greenhouse effect" which is still not even more than a theory.

You can not "know" that the meat puppet faggot AKA Obozo was anything more than piece of shit commie who never had a productive job in his life.

You can not "know" the russians "hacked" the election and framed the DNC for screwing Bernie out of the nomination.

You can not "know" the tooth fairy left you $1 the last time you lost a tooth falling down a flight of stairs.

Everything you "think" you "know" is absolute bullshit and I am more than delighted to tell you even though I KNOW the information will never penetrate the incredible density of ignorance between your ears.

 

[Zander]

Hide the decline!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, that seems like the hobby of a stupid and insecure person. But it does save you from all of the hard work of "learning things" and "knowing things". Enjoy your neurotic cackling, I will leave you to it.

LOL!!!

"LEARNING"???? Did you seriously just imply you have "information" to divulge that no one else has ever posted?

Listen here bed wetter, even though I realize you're incapable of "learning" anything.

You "KNOW" absolutely nothing.

You can not "know" Santa Claus flies around the world in 24 hours behind magic reindeer,

You can't "know" that human production of CO2, which accounts for MAYBE %3 (or less) of all atmospheric CO2 is a "problem" when CO2 only accounts for MAYBE %3 of all the so called "greenhouse effect" which is still not even more than a theory.

You can not "know" that the meat puppet faggot AKA Obozo was anything more than piece of shit commie who never had a productive job in his life.

You can not "know" the russians "hacked" the election and framed the DNC for screwing Bernie out of the nomination.

You can not "know" the tooth fairy left you $1 the last time you lost a tooth falling down a flight of stairs.

Everything you "think" you "know" is absolute bullshit and I am more than delighted to tell you even though I KNOW the information will never penetrate the incredible density of ignorance between your ears.

I didn't and don't think I possess any special knowledge on this topic. Rather, I think you possess less than none. No, your words do not wound me...they just make you look stupid and juvenile.

 

[Pete7469]

I didn't and don't think

You should have stopped there. Your response would have been legitimate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't and don't think

You should have stopped there. Your response would have been legitimate.

If only everyone pushing back against accepted science and rational morality were as ignorant and incapable as you are....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Global warming aka climate change is the biggest wealth redistribution scam in the history of the world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Global warming aka climate change is the biggest wealth redistribution scam in the history of the world.

No, that would be oligarchy.

 

[Old Rocks]

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....

OK, give us some articles from credible scientists that provide evidence for what you are saying. In the meantime, we have a huge amount of observational evidence concerning the effect of warming oceans on the clathrates, the affect of a warming atmosphere on the permafrost CO2 and CH4, and the fact that we are seeing large increases in the CH4 over the Arctic. That is what was an effect predicted by the scientists. So when might we see the effects you are predicting?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"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."

While this may be factually true on its face, it has no significance in this discussion, unless it is quantified.

 

[Old Rocks]

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...

Yessirree, by God, nothing shocking about 56 inches of rain in six days. Just ask anyone in Houston.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Our right wing nuts are a serious threat to the future of this country and should be sent to mars.

Seriously...Fuck em...Discussing issues with people that can make shit up on the fly is like discussing physics with a giant rat.

 

[Old Rocks]

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..

Either you have not been looking or you are a liar.

Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications
Mark New, Diana Liverman, Heike Schroder, Kevin Anderson
Published 29 November 2010.DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0303

Abstract
The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change commits signatories to preventing ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’, leaving unspecified the level of global warming that is dangerous. In the late 1990s, a limit of 2°C global warming above preindustrial temperature was proposed as a ‘guard rail’ below which most of the dangerous climate impacts could be avoided. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord recognized the scientific view ‘that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius’ despite growing views that this might be too high. At the same time, the continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade and the delays in a comprehensive global emissions reduction agreement have made achieving this target extremely difficult, arguably impossible, raising the likelihood of global temperature rises of 3°C or 4°C within this century. Yet, there are few studies that assess the potential impacts and consequences of a warming of 4°C or greater in a systematic manner. Papers in this themed issue provide an initial picture of the challenges facing a world that warms by 4°C or more, and the difficulties ahead if warming is to be limited to 2°C with any reasonable certainty. Across many sectors—coastal cities, agriculture, water stress, ecosystems, migration—the impacts and adaptation challenges at 4°C will be larger than at 2°C. In some cases, such as farming in sub-Saharan Africa, a +4°C warming could result in the collapse of systems or require transformational adaptation out of systems, as we understand them today. The potential severity of impacts and the behavioural, institutional, societal and economic challenges involved in coping with these impacts argue for renewed efforts to reduce emissions, using all available mechanisms, to minimize the chances of high-end climate change. Yet at the same time, there is a need for accelerated and focused research that improves understanding of how the climate system might behave under a +4°C warming, what the impacts of such changes might be and how best to adapt to what would be unprecedented changes in the world we live in.

| Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C

Glen P. Peters, Robbie M. Andrew, Tom Boden, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Corinne Le Quéré, Gregg Marland, Michael R. Raupach and Charlie Wilson

The latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track the high end of emission scenarios, making it even less likely global warming will stay below 2 °C. A shift to a 2 °C pathway requires immediate significant and sustained global mitigation, with a probable reliance on net negative emissions in the longer term.

The challenge to keep global warming below 2 ?C - ProQuest

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100

1. D. O. Breecker1,2,
2. Z. D. Sharp, and
3. L. D. McFadden

Abstract
Quantifying atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]atm) during Earth’s ancient greenhouse episodes is essential for accurately predicting the response of future climate to elevated CO2 levels. Empirical estimates of [CO2]atm during Paleozoic and Mesozoic greenhouse climates are based primarily on the carbon isotope composition of calcium carbonate in fossil soils. We report that greenhouse [CO2]atm have been significantly overestimated because previously assumed soil CO2 concentrations during carbonate formation are too high. More accurate [CO2]atm, resulting from better constraints on soil CO2, indicate that large (1,000s of ppmV) fluctuations in [CO2]atm did not characterize ancient climates and that past greenhouse climates were accompanied by concentrations similar to those projected for A.D. 2100.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100

One reason you are not seeing many new articles on the increase in temperature for 2100 is that the subject has been pretty well explored in light of present knowledge. That said, there are some large unknowns. Outgassing of the permafrost, methane eruptions from the ocean clathrates, or an increase in anthropogenic sources can all change that equation in a very negative manner.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Climate Change 2014
Synthesis Report
Summary for Policymakers

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...ggnMAE&usg=AFQjCNFovznIgJB_XquiZ1Cie8bSosh11g

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

What a Goddamned dumb fuck you are. So you are saying that all the scientists in all the different nations and cultures in the world are all lying for money. You are accusing them of scientific fraud, the worst sin in the scientific community. And, in the meantime, not one of them has come out of the cold to explain what force it is that is holding this vast worldwide conspiracy of the smartest people on this planet together. I think that your little tin hat has been too tight for a lot of years.