Arctic Ocean Is On Thin Ice: European Satellite Confirms Numbers

[Catawba]

"The climate change debate is getting warming due to a discovery by a team of researchers from UNC-Chapel Hill.

The team, led by Rose Cory, a UNC professor, has uncovered a new threat in the warming Arctic tundra - melting of the permafrost and the subsequent release of previously frozen carbon into the atmosphere. The resulting carbon dioxide could double greenhouse gas emissions and have a big impact on climate change, the study found.

"What we discovered is that the conversion of previously frozen soil carbon in the Arctic to carbon dioxide (CO2, greenhouse gas) will be increased by reactions with sunlight and their effects on bacteria," Cory, an assistant professor of environmental sciences and engineering, told WRAL News.

A landslide in the tundra created by melting

"This is important because tremendous stores of organic carbon have been frozen in permafrost soils for thousands of years," she said. "And if thawed and released as CO2 gas, these stores have the potential to double the amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on a timescale similar to human inputs of fossil fuels."

Melting arctic tundra releases a new climate change threat, UNC says :: Editor's Blog at WRAL Tech Wire

 

[flogger]

Natural warming cycles have had some type of forcing such as a solar maximum, or huge volcanic event. Those have been ruled out in this warming. What is left is our pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes.

Nonsense

Please empirically illustrate (by citing the Peer review it came from) how the 100 PPM of CO2 added since industrialisation has been responsible for the the warming of the last 150 years.

Still waiting for it ..... as ever

 

[Catawba]

Nonsense

Please empirically illustrate (by citing the Peer review it came from) how the 100 PPM of CO2 added since industrialisation has been responsible for the the warming of the last 150 years.

Still waiting for it ..... as ever

If you have a 20 quart bucket that already has 19 quarts of water in it, and you add two more quarts of water, what happens? If you pump more untreated sewage into a small receiving stream than the stream can mitigate naturally, what happens?

It is the same principle with greenhouse gases like CO2. Our contribution, in addition to the earth's natural sources, are overloading the earth's ability to mitigate this increase naturally without heating the planet.

 

[flogger]

If you have a 20 quart bucket that already has 19 quarts of water in it, and you add two more quarts of water, what happens? If you pump more untreated sewage into a small receiving stream than the stream can mitigate naturally, what happens?

Nonsense. A better analogy would be throwing a bucket of water into a river . You still wont stop it bursting its banks in the future if you hadnt done it .

It is the same principle with greenhouse gases like CO2. Our contribution, in addition to the earth's natural sources, are overloading the earth's ability to mitigate this increase naturally without heating the planet

Nonsense again ,as the 'Greening Earth' thread has illustrated elsewhere already. A 100PPM increase is a minute and largely beneficial contribution in the great scheme of things

 

[LowDown]

Right, scientists all over the world have been in conspiracy for the last hundred years. Got it!

Like I say, stick with the experts you trust. What other choice have you got?

AGW advocates who haven't looked at the data or the models and can't understand either are as ignorant as they imagine skeptics to be.

 

[Catawba]

Nonsense. A better analogy would be throwing a bucket of water into a river . You still wont stop it bursting its banks in the future if you hadnt done it .

Nonsense again ,as the 'Greening Earth' thread has illustrated elsewhere already. A 100PPM increase is a minute and largely beneficial contribution in the great scheme of things

Well, obviously you have your mind made up. Thanks for your opinion, however this thread was for:

For those interested in new scientific research related to climate change ~

If you have no interest in this study, no one is keeping you.

 

[Catawba]

Like I say, stick with the experts you trust.

You mean the consensus of the world's scientific experts since 2007? Yes, I certainly will.

 

[LowDown]

You mean the consensus of the world's scientific experts since 2007? Yes, I certainly will.

Well, no, you're not allowed to spread falsehoods. There is no consensus.

 

[flogger]

Well, obviously you have your mind made up. Thanks for your opinion, however this thread was for:

If you have no interest in this study, no one is keeping you.

But its not an actual study is it ? Its a few subjectively interpreted snippets from one that admits to indulging climate modelling in its conclusions . Get back to me when you link the actual study itself and then we'll talk

 

[Catawba]

Well, no, you're not allowed to spread falsehoods. There is no consensus.

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position."



Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[flogger]

Until we get an entirely legitimate poll with non leading questions being asked we'll never know the truth of it , but I suspect only a tiny percentage hold the opinions of the doomsday cabale leading the charge here :roll:

 

[Catawba]

Until we get an entirely legitimate poll with non leading questions being asked we'll never know the truth of it , but I suspect only a tiny percentage hold the opinions of the doomsday cabale leading the charge here :roll:

What do you find misleading about the 3 points of consensus:

"1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming."

 

[flogger]

What do you find misleading about the 3 points of consensus:

Well....

"1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]

The global temperature has been static for half that 30 period now according to UAH and RSS satellite data. This is mirrored by the NOMADS oceanic surface data too.

2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]

So why has the warming stopped given CO 2 emissions are actually accelerating ?

3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming."

That again is a moot point given the warming has stopped.

Who asked the scientific community about these three points of 'consensus' in order that they might agree to them in the first place ? This is a Wikipedia entry which anyone can contribute to with any old twaddle they like .

 

[Catawba]

Well....



The global temperature has been static for half that 30 period now according to UAH and RSS satellite data. This is mirrored by the NOMADS oceanic surface data too.

Let's see the scientific consensus on that?

So why has the warming stopped given CO 2 emissions are actually accelerating ?

Let's see the scientific consensus on that?

That again is a moot point given the warming has stopped.

Let's see the scientific consensus on that?

Who asked the scientific community about these three points of 'consensus' in order that they might agree to them in the first place ? This is a Wikipedia entry which anyone can contribute to with any old twaddle they like .

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points"

Show me any of the worlds science academies that have held a dissenting opinion to any of the 3 points since 2007, if you can?

 

[flogger]

Let's see the scientific consensus on that?

Why would you prefer opinion to direct observation given you have been presented with these data sources multiple times over multiple threads by multiple posters now ? Are you afraid such inconvenient facts will challenge your faith ?

It doesnt matter what anyone thinks might happen it actually matters what is happening surely ?

 

[LowDown]

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position."



Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia article is crap.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

 

[Catawba]

The Wikipedia article is crap.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

If that were the case you could name at least one of the world's science academy that has held a dissenting view of AGW since 2007.

I'll wait..........

 

[Catawba]

Why would you prefer opinion to direct observation given you have been presented with these data sources multiple times over multiple threads by multiple posters now ? Are you afraid such inconvenient facts will challenge your faith ?

It doesnt matter what anyone thinks might happen it actually matters what is happening surely ?

Thanks for your opinion!

 

[flogger]

Thanks for your opinion!

Unlike you I dont need subjective opinions when the verifiable facts work just fine for me :roll:

 

[flogger]

If that were the case you could name at least one of the world's science academy that has held a dissenting view of AGW since 2007.

I'll wait..........

Feel free to post the poll each of these science academies took of thier membership before coming to thier respective position ?

 

[Goshin]

In other news, most people find this less than alarming.




Possibly because every single whale fart has been overhyped in the name of the climate-change-panic crowd, while at the same time there has been a lot of scandal around it and the revelation of many questionable scientific practices.

 

[Catawba]

Unlike you I dont need subjective opinions when the verifiable facts work just fine for me :roll:

So you have no scientific consensus to back up your opinion. Thanks!

 

[flogger]

So you have no scientific consensus to back up your opinion. Thanks!

And you have no facts to back up your consensus. You cannot even verify that a single poll has ever been taken (of the membership of any of these academies you so revere) that would back up both thier and your position . Get back to me again when you can find one :lol:

 

[ksu_aviator]

So, if the Earth's atmosphere has warmed 0.7 degree over the last 100 years, or 10 times faster than previous eras following an ice age, compared to 1.0 degrees over the past 1,500 years, that means that warming is natural, and the data don't support the idea that warming is accelerating.

Understood.

That's not what I said. I said they cherry picked data. They used a data range based that would appear to show a large acceleration, when in fact it is part of the peaks and valleys that occur naturally during the cycle.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That's not what I said. I said they cherry picked data. They used a data range based that would appear to show a large acceleration, when in fact it is part of the peaks and valleys that occur naturally during the cycle.

I see. So, the data range that includes the blue portion of the graph shown in the post I was quoting is cherry picked. Pick out another portion of the graph, and it doesn't show quite as drastic of a change. That the blue portion coincides with the industrial age is simply coincidence.