What REALLY terrifies climate scientists: "Feedback"

[Old Rocks]

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...

Nice article, and what I hope to see more of from you deniers. However, we don't see that in real time.

 

[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.

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.

Don't you get it? The allure of becoming wealthy beyond one's wildest dreams by being a research scientist is just too strong to resist.

Too bad there's no money in the fossil fuel industry to go around, else they would be funding and churning out the CORRECT science, to the benefit of us all!

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

LOL Says one of the most ignorant posters on this board. Did you even finish high school, Petie? Ever take even one science class?

What I smell here is the fear of a silly ignorant cocksucker for anyone that has done the work to become educated in the basics of science. The resentment of the guy that cleans the toilets for the man that makes five times what he does because he worked to get an education in a profession or technical field. You yatter one and never say a goddamned thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hide the decline!!

Silly knownothing bastard, the Mann Graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies, different researchers, different proxies. But you will continue to knowingly lie just like the treasonous fat senile old orange clown you worship.

 

[Zander]

Hide the decline!!

Silly knownothing bastard, the Mann Graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies, different researchers, different proxies. But you will continue to knowingly lie just like the treasonous fat senile old orange clown you worship.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

 

[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...

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.

I was just going to compliment you on being focused on the science. MOST of which is not difficult for scientists in other disciplines to read and comprehend. Thought you had an advantage over the BULK of warmers spouting "settled science" and the advantage of investing some personal time into the subject. But after THAT performance of attempting to SHAME ME for my investment -- I'm gonna pass...

When do your EXHAULTED scientific sources tell you we can expect to be able to MEASURE "runaway warming"??? Did you ever SEE any empirical evidence of this? You do understand that the total warming rate during the satellite age is STILL around 0.13degC/decade and hasn't change much since the satellites went up. . RIGHT??

I assume you're also aware that by basic GHouse theory, Atmospheric Physics, Chemistry --- WITHOUT all the apocalyptic accelerations and feedbacks -- that a DOUBLING of CO2 in the Atmos gives about 1.1degC change in surface temperature. You know this RIGHT? And that we are not quite at the FIRST doubling since the end of the last Ice Age? And for the NEXT doubling --- it will take TWICE the amount of CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1degC?

It's really hard to "runaway" under those conditions. .

 

[flacaltenn]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

 

[flacaltenn]

"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.

You up for that?? Thank GAWD..... You're the warmer prophet I've been waiting to meet. You first....

 

[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...

Nice article, and what I hope to see more of from you deniers. However, we don't see that in real time.

You TRYING to be friendly? Not sure what your "real time" comment meant..

 

[Old Rocks]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

Interesting. So, let is do the math. From just before 2010.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/6Page54.pdf

Problem 1 - Answer: The general shape of the curve suggests a polynomial function of loworder, whose amplitude is modulated by the addition of a sinusoid. The two simplest functions that satisfy this constraint are a 'quadratic' and a 'cubic'… where 't' is the elapsed time in years since 1982
..................................................................................................................................................................
Problem 3 - What would you predict as the carbon dioxide concentration (ppm), and mass for the years:

A) 2020? B)2050, C)2100? Answer: A) t = 2020-1982 = 38, so Fco2(38) = 7.83 x 410 ppm = 3,200 gigatons

B) t = 2050-1982 = 68, so Fco2(68) = 7.83 x 502 ppm = 3,900 gigatons

C) t = 2100-1982 = 118, so Fco2(118) = 7.83 x 718 ppm = 5,600 gigatons

So they did the math about 2010, and came up with 410 ppm by 2020. Except we now have 410 ppm, and 2017 is not done yet. How much are they off on the other two figures? Perhaps that should be revisited and other curves tried, and see what matches best the present reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

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...

Nice article, and what I hope to see more of from you deniers. However, we don't see that in real time.

You TRYING to be friendly? Not sure what your "real time" comment meant..

That curve is real time evidence. That article stated that the southern ocean was taking up more CO2, yet the curve shows no attenuation. Either we have increased, significantly, the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, or there is another significant source.

 

[flacaltenn]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

Interesting. So, let is do the math. From just before 2010.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/6Page54.pdf

Problem 1 - Answer: The general shape of the curve suggests a polynomial function of loworder, whose amplitude is modulated by the addition of a sinusoid. The two simplest functions that satisfy this constraint are a 'quadratic' and a 'cubic'… where 't' is the elapsed time in years since 1982
..................................................................................................................................................................
Problem 3 - What would you predict as the carbon dioxide concentration (ppm), and mass for the years:

A) 2020? B)2050, C)2100? Answer: A) t = 2020-1982 = 38, so Fco2(38) = 7.83 x 410 ppm = 3,200 gigatons

B) t = 2050-1982 = 68, so Fco2(68) = 7.83 x 502 ppm = 3,900 gigatons

C) t = 2100-1982 = 118, so Fco2(118) = 7.83 x 718 ppm = 5,600 gigatons

So they did the math about 2010, and came up with 410 ppm by 2020. Except we now have 410 ppm, and 2017 is not done yet. How much are they off on the other two figures? Perhaps that should be revisited and other curves tried, and see what matches best the present reality.

Ooooh.. You're turning me on here. Thank you for finding that NASA "space math" just validated my assertion that the ACCELERATION is negligible.

Problem 1 - Answer: The general shape of the curve suggests a polynomial function of loworder, whose amplitude is modulated by the addition of a sinusoid. The two simplest functions that satisfy this constraint are a 'quadratic' and a 'cubic'… where 't' is the elapsed time in years since 1982 F1 = A sin (Bt + C) + (Dt2 + Et + F) and F2 = A sin(Bt + C) + (Dt3 + Et2 + Ft + G) We have to solve for the two sets of constants A, B, C, D , E, F and for A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Using Excel and some iterations, as an example, the constants that produce the best fits appear to be: F1: (3.5, 6.24, -0.5, +0.0158, +1.27, 342.0) and F2: (3.5, 6.24, -0.5, +0.0012, - 0.031, +1.75, +341.0). Hint: Compute the yearly averages and fit these, then subtract this polynomial from the actual data and fit what is left over (the residual) with a sin function.)

Forget F2 -- it's overkill but gives the same "minimal acceleration answer.. And forget the sinusoidal term which is the annual variation that doesn't change into future insight. So for F1

D is the acceleration with time = 0.0158
E is the LINEAR term with time = 1.27
F is the offset = 342

Any acceleration Fort Fun is seeing in that graph -- is insignificant error to a simple linear fit..

And you're whining about CO2 projections being off by THREE years? Why??

 

[flacaltenn]

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
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...

Nice article, and what I hope to see more of from you deniers. However, we don't see that in real time.

You TRYING to be friendly? Not sure what your "real time" comment meant..

That curve is real time evidence. That article stated that the southern ocean was taking up more CO2, yet the curve shows no attenuation. Either we have increased, significantly, the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, or there is another significant source.

Almost. What the Southern Ocean curve is has nothing to do with Atmos conc. of CO2. It's the measure of it's CO2 SINKING ability. The ability to actually REMOVE more CO2 in a year --- than it puts up to the atmos. Meaning that 0 is a net balance. And anything positive is positive rate of sequestration that it's achieving in BURYING "excess CO2" from the atmos.

It's not constant. MAYBE cyclical as the paper says. But over the study time is a considerable source of atmos CO2 removal... POSSIBLY affected by the sea ice coverage as well off Antarctica..

OR maybe you dont' see variations in the annual atmos CO2 Mauna Loa stuff because the annual rate of ACCUMULATION is so low that all those net sinks don't show up well. If you squint -- You CAN see some decadal variance in the Mauna Loa graph.. NASA math (lol) just told you the linear increase is really only 1.27ppm per year. Guys like Matthew are just watching the annual variation..

 

[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..

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,
   • Z. D. Sharp, and
   • 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.

Of course I'm not a liar Roxie.. That paper is over 7 years old. And the authors are not modelers or atmospheric people. They are the "philosophy" staff of the IPCC using even OLDER pronouncements and recycled data. It's basically "policy analysis" -- not a new prediction of 2100 anomaly...

 

[flacaltenn]

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
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...

Nice article, and what I hope to see more of from you deniers. However, we don't see that in real time.

You TRYING to be friendly? Not sure what your "real time" comment meant..

That curve is real time evidence. That article stated that the southern ocean was taking up more CO2, yet the curve shows no attenuation. Either we have increased, significantly, the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, or there is another significant source.

Your not understanding the relative size of the yearly increase. Lemme explain from memory as impaired as I am by a beer and a round of steroids to treat a massive chigger attack on my body..

Nature puts up about 700Gton CO2 per year (approx 1/2 from land/ocean) and man is charged for 35GTon per year which is (falsely) accounted as the "excess". The accounting for the 1.26ppm/yr is not all that accurate or good. So of the 5% contribution from man -- SO FAR --- the ability of nature is to sink and resequester about 1/2 of that 35Gtons.. So nature is a net sink. But the "excess" that is measured at Mauna Loa is only 2.5% of the total exchange. So MASSIVE amounts of emissions ARE being sequestered. 1/2 of everything man sends up. The reason you don't SEE that in the PPM plots is because that yearly excess is only 1.27 PPM.. If Nature sequestered 10 or 20% more or less a year -- it would be a mere BLIP at that scale on the Mauna Loa graph.

BUT -- if you opened up a brand new whopping big rain forest or the Arctic Ocean was clear of sea ice for a considerable period of time -- if (MAN + nature) emissions remained CONSTANT --- you'd see it in a matter of years.

 

[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

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.

I was just going to compliment you on being focused on the science. MOST of which is not difficult for scientists in other disciplines to read and comprehend. Thought you had an advantage over the BULK of warmers spouting "settled science" and the advantage of investing some personal time into the subject. But after THAT performance of attempting to SHAME ME for my investment -- I'm gonna pass...

When do your EXHAULTED scientific sources tell you we can expect to be able to MEASURE "runaway warming"??? Did you ever SEE any empirical evidence of this? You do understand that the total warming rate during the satellite age is STILL around 0.13degC/decade and hasn't change much since the satellites went up. . RIGHT??

I assume you're also aware that by basic GHouse theory, Atmospheric Physics, Chemistry --- WITHOUT all the apocalyptic accelerations and feedbacks -- that a DOUBLING of CO2 in the Atmos gives about 1.1degC change in surface temperature. You know this RIGHT? And that we are not quite at the FIRST doubling since the end of the last Ice Age? And for the NEXT doubling --- it will take TWICE the amount of CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1degC?

It's really hard to "runaway" under those conditions. .

That's not accurate at all. The estimates for the warming of doubling of CO2 range from 2 to 4.5 degrees. While I have generally avoided responding to your piles of lies, I have read them, and I think I have counted at least twelve. You are a liar who is either making stuff up as you go, or parroting it from paid liars. Carry on...I'll continue to get my info from the experts, while you freakish deniers stay relegated to your forum made up entirely of self-soothing blogs and message boards. Enjoy!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

I give you an F in calculus. In fact, this statement by you is a reveal that you clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. You are a charlatan, which is a safe bet when it comes to any and all deniers.

 

[mamooth]

We may have seen the start of a negative feedback cycle this year, which would be a good thing.

Snowfall in the northern hemisphere was well above normal, due to warmer air temps and more Arctic ocean water being exposed by melting sea ice. That snowpack took a long time to melt on the northern edges of Russia, Canada and Alaska, and on the sea ice itself. It reflected more sunlight during that time, lowering the temperature in the area and preserving more of the surrounding sea ice. So, that's a negative feedback on sea ice melt.

However, it's too early to tell if that will be a regular thing, and how much of an effect it will have.

 

[flacaltenn]

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
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.

I was just going to compliment you on being focused on the science. MOST of which is not difficult for scientists in other disciplines to read and comprehend. Thought you had an advantage over the BULK of warmers spouting "settled science" and the advantage of investing some personal time into the subject. But after THAT performance of attempting to SHAME ME for my investment -- I'm gonna pass...

When do your EXHAULTED scientific sources tell you we can expect to be able to MEASURE "runaway warming"??? Did you ever SEE any empirical evidence of this? You do understand that the total warming rate during the satellite age is STILL around 0.13degC/decade and hasn't change much since the satellites went up. . RIGHT??

I assume you're also aware that by basic GHouse theory, Atmospheric Physics, Chemistry --- WITHOUT all the apocalyptic accelerations and feedbacks -- that a DOUBLING of CO2 in the Atmos gives about 1.1degC change in surface temperature. You know this RIGHT? And that we are not quite at the FIRST doubling since the end of the last Ice Age? And for the NEXT doubling --- it will take TWICE the amount of CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1degC?

It's really hard to "runaway" under those conditions. .

That's not accurate at all. The estimates for the warming of doubling of CO2 range from 2 to 4.5 degrees. While I have generally avoided responding to your piles of lies, I have read them, and I think I have counted at least twelve. You are a liar who is either making stuff up as you go, or parroting it from paid liars. Carry on...I'll continue to get my info from the experts, while you freakish deniers stay relegated to your forum made up entirely of self-soothing blogs and message boards. Enjoy!

Never make stuff up. You didn't follow my qualifications to the proposition. I specifically said -- BASIC GHouse effect. No accelerations, no feedback, no "magic multipliers" of Climate Sensitivity applied to the physics calculation.

You gotta restrain this urge to call me a cheat and liar. It's unbecoming and ugly. That IS the basic warming power of CO2 in the atmos that I quoted. The numbers YOU are familiar with and are quoting include a constant for "Climate Sensitivity" which makes all kinds of ADDITIONAL assumptions to MULTIPLY the effect.
And if you've watched the literature on these "magic multipliers" over the course of this sideshow, they've been CONSTANTLY revised downward since the 80s along with the projects of impending doom..

IN FACT -- they are currently SO LOW compared to where they were in the 80s, that the estimates used in the modeling now are CLOSER to basic warming power of CO2 that I quoted. Rather than the hystrionic versions originally given.

I'll try to find a chart I have of the history of this revision.

Quit being a prick about this. I was looking forward to a real discussion.. It's been a long time since anyone showed up here with more than propaganda and hype for the warming apocalypse conclusion..