Yes, increased surface temperatures are sure to have other effects besides increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If some of those effects have a moderating influence on temperature, then there goes your positive feedback.
Anyway, it’s clear that researchers do not have an adequate understanding of the interplay among these various factors. Because if they did, they would be able to make bona fide predictions which are interesting and accurate.
As they say, in theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.
Or to put it another way, the theory you advance appears to be an oversimplification. Because if it were a reasonably accurate model of reality, one would have expected the oceans to have boiled off long ago.
OK now that made me laugh
FNG must not have read the topic
He’s just trying to change the subject.
Speaking of taking things waaaaaaaay too seriously…
Says the person who lied in this thread in order to feel good about himself.
You’re right, as always, sir!
(Is any of this working? You realize I’m just trying to get into your pants, right?)
Here, have another banana:
Keep typing: Hamlet is on its way.
From one side of your mouth:
That’s only true if the ocean is saturated with CO[sub]2[/sub], you can do the math yourself and see. Any student of meteorology is very familiar with that particular physical process, and it don’t work unless you’re at the saturation level. If the higher temperature water can hold the CO[sub]2[/sub] is solution, then it will.
Do you have hard numbers, or is this just a rumor? What is the agent that causes CO[sub]2[/sub] to accumulate in permafrost? Otherwise, if it’s just the CO[sub]2[/sub] that froze into the permafrost, then it’s levels are only 280 ppm … it would dilute the current 400 ppm.
Positive feedback needs to be demonstrated thermodynamically, where does the energy come from and what force is at play. In cyclones, the energy comes from condensing water and this is given to the torque of the vortex. Simply the existence of a cyclone causes it to grow, positive feedback.
Now from the other side of your mouth:
What the fuck is re-sequestering the CO[sub]2[/sub], you just said the oceans were evolving CO[sub]2[/sub] gas like a motherfucker. Which is it, ocean vomiting their contents or are things sucking it up?
re-sequestered … explain yourself.
andros … I’m not good enough for you … well then you’re not good enough for me. Piss off …
Yup, thanks.
How about cites to three of your claimed publications? A renowned and prolific scholar such as yourself should have no problem providing them.
OK now this just isn’t going to fly. Are you seriously saying you don’t know about the permafrost? Or the huge amount of frozen vegetation/animal shit locked up in the arctic regions? Here, have a source of information
Of course it may not be an accident that people don’t know much about the arctic, the permafrost or why there is so much of it. This would involve an explanation about how the arctic went from being a rich and thriving ecosystem, with plant and animal life beyond imagining, to a frozen wasteland, where the ground is frozen 700 feet deep, and life only thrives on the surface, briefly each year.
As the esteemed scientist notes, what will happen with thawing is a true unknown. But measurements show currently that because of the amount of carbon used by plants in the arctic, even with thawing permafrost, it is a huge carbon sink, not a source of CO2.
Plants for the most part. Until you see it, you can’t imagine how fast and how much plants grow when they have twenty four hours of sunlight.
That is complete nonsense. Read a book, educate yourself. Global warming. OK?
Well, I do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt you know. There is no reason at all to get emotional or angry over the weather. Or the climate.
Well, for starters this was a funny topic in Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)
A simply wonderful and thoughtful Mod moved it here, making it seem like I desired a Pit topic, which I did not, or I would certainly named it something more Pit worthy, like “Fuck you Climate change and the methane time bomb you rode in on”, or maybe “I am so Goddamn sick and tired of other people fucking up my climate”. You know, something like we are used to seeing in the Pit.
You are confused. Real climate scientist agree with me, and they ask me for advice. Unless we are arguing, in which case it’s no question and answer session.
Did you see what you did there?
One calls their own judgement, one way or another.
What you gave is one sentence from the abstract. Read the rest of the abstract.
The conclusion is given in the article. I posted the link to the article.
You are not countering my argument. Your claim is that fossil fuels are safer when they are burned compared to oil spills. But to burn oil you have to deliver it first, which is when oil spills take place.
The word “and” makes the phrase a dependent clause. Read the link shared earlier for details.
The sentence you quoted here
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17566795&postcount=2896
is the second sentence of the abstract. You need to read the rest of the abstract found here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
Circular logic … The abstract itself doesn’t support the claims made by the newspaper article. Have you read either?
Yes, that’s why I am able to counter your argument.
You referred to only one sentence from the abstract. You did not read the sentences that followed it.
Whoa! Let’s not ask for miracles.
Round Four … yes I did.
Where did you counter my argument? Where have you said anything except aping works you cannot understand? Do you even know how to copy/paste sentences?
Have you paid the $32 US and read the paper?