Permafrost warming in parts of Alaska is 'unbelievable'

It's starting to get ridiculous. It used to be that we argued weather it was man made global warming or just a natural cycle. What was causing Global Warming? That was the debate.

Not we actually have to argue whether the earth is warming or cooling! Blah. We know it's warming.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You all act as if EVERYTHING is known. The science is in! Its a done deal! The climate models are perfect because the information they are based on is a known quantity and everything is understood perfectly.

There is no reason for the average person to think anymore, our scientists are GODS who never ever make mistakes, are never biased in their thinking.

Well lets examine that premise

Obviously there is a direct relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and plant life because CO2 is a plant fertilizer.

www.ibtimes.com...

New research reveals there are 3 trillion trees in the world -- far more than scientists previously thought. That's great news for conservationists and ecologists, who now have a clearer picture of the forests they aim to preserve. Now the bad news: The data, compiled as part of the largest-ever survey of the world's forests, means that every new tree that is planted plays a smaller role in the global fight to capture carbon emissions.

A team of researchers have completed the momentous challenge of counting all the world’s trees and found that there are about 422 trees for every person on earth. That number greatly overshadows the last estimate of about 400 billion trees, and it will likely appear in climate models and be cited in conservation plans for years to come. Trees are an important ally in humanity's effort to rein in carbon emissions because trees capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into woody biomass for their branches and trunks through a process known as carbon sequestration. Their results were published in the journal Nature Wednesday.

So a jump from 400 billion trees to 3 trillion with more trees in the tundra than in rain forests. Gosh the climate models will have to be re-tooled won't they? The scientists who created the climate models for the IPPC DID NOT KNOW about the existance of an extra 2.5 TRILLION trees.

I guess they just did not know what they did not know.

So we know for sure that there is a direct relationship between atmospheric CO2 and biomass on the earth. We know that there has been a 14 % increase in productivity attributed directly to increased atmospheric CO2. I guess this is just one of those balancing acts that nature is in charge of.

So what exactly is the PERFECT concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? Obviously the IPPC thinks 400 ppm is too high. Even though CO2 has been much much higher in the past. The IPPC doesn't think that having free fertilizer and increased productivity is a bad bad thing and must be stopped immediately.

So - what is the perfect concentration of CO2 to prevent global warming?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Now here is something else that what was NOT known when the climate models were created for the IPPC.

ttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_global_cooling_factor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

Another one of nature's little surprises.

Tired of Control Freaks

I always like how they say it hasn't been this cold in a hundred years, if climate change is causing it now, what caused it back then?

a reply to: amazing

Only a handful of people dispute man's role in AGW, however they flood the internet forumsin an attempt to manufacture a consensus.

We have identified a problem, now we have to work on solutions.

Yet the tv program 'mountain men' keep saying that the winters are early, and colder, in Alaska, and some parts of America, so who is right? as regards general world weather, Buffalo NY and Scotland UK, still had snow in June! yep, that's warm.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
There is no reason for the average person to think anymore, our scientists are GODS who never ever make mistakes, are never biased in their thinking.

On the contrary. And that is the criticism levelved at science time and time again: they are NOT gods. But some do think they should be gods and whatever they said, 10, 20, 30 years ago should still hold true today.

The fact is, science is simply the sum of todays knowledge and can all change tomorrow. And every scientist is trying to learn more and prove that what we thought we knew is wrong. However we cannot predict what we may - or may not - learn tomorrow. We can only work on what we know today.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

We also cannot use science as an excuse to make predictions for 100, 200 and 300 years from now and then use those predictions to hold the population of the world hostage!

None of the climate models predicted a "pause" in global warming. They could not predict what would happen in 10 accurately and cannot be used to predict the far future accurately.

Global warming has been a positive for the last 10,000 years. There is no reason to believe that it is a negative now. Climate scientists have gone far far beyond reasonable scope. Scientists are now pretending to be gypsies!

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: AndyMayhew

We also cannot use science as an excuse to make predictions for 100, 200 and 300 years from now and then use those predictions to hold the population of the world hostage!

None of the climate models predicted a "pause" in global warming. They could not predict what would happen in 10 accurately and cannot be used to predict the far future accurately.

Global warming has been a positive for the last 10,000 years. There is no reason to believe that it is a negative now. Climate scientists have gone far far beyond reasonable scope. Scientists are now pretending to be gypsies!

Tired of Control Freaks

You are being very funny today... and as jrod has said - you are clear example what Dunning-Krueger effect means.

Firstly, science has to be used to help us in all means possible, and some of things we do today will have impact tomorrow. This was previously explained with example of lead in fuel.

It is sad that people who don't know how science works are at power, but eventually that will change.

To best explain how politician, science and regular people all mix - let's look at recent study on link between fracking and earthquakes.

Scientist show link between fracking and earthquakes, politician passed the law next day that takes control of local authorities making it impossible to ban fracking, regular people suffer - do you see how wrong is this system?? The same politicians are lost when it comes to global change - they simply deny it. Everything would be much simpler to understand if they had logo of their sponsors on their suits (something like NASCAR cars, filled with logos ), it would be easier to explain - why they push something we all know is not true...

So please, don't make yourself look like a fool/troll and pretend you know more about climate change then scientist who are studying it.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Yet the tv program 'mountain men' keep saying that the winters are early, and colder, in Alaska, and some parts of America, so who is right? as regards general world weather, Buffalo NY and Scotland UK, still had snow in June! yep, that's warm.

Hey, you spotted why they call it 'global', not 'local'. Great job!

originally posted by: pikestaff
Yet the tv program 'mountain men' keep saying that the winters are early, and colder, in Alaska, and some parts of America, so who is right? as regards general world weather, Buffalo NY and Scotland UK, still had snow in June! yep, that's warm.

But I'm still in shorts in Vegas and it was one of the hottest Summers ever recorded so...that's warm.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: chewi

Yes, but the CO2 which will be released be the thawn permafrost will add up to the existing CO2-tonnage, as it is fossile CO2. And in the megaton-scope. Its not only Alasca, but Siberia, too!

So, this is another way we will be doomed. But heeeeeey, its not us, its only affecting our children and their children!

I have children.

c'mon....the Koch bros, big oil, and the republicans have told us that there is no such thing as global warming....and hey, they never lie.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Global warming has been a positive for the last 10,000 years. There is no reason to believe that it is a negative now.

Global cooling has been the trend for the past 5,000 years - due to a decline in axial tilt. During that time there have been ups and downs. We are currently in an up, one which seems anomalous since we cannot explain it using current scientific knowledge, other than when we invoke a variety of anthropogenic forcings (which, to be fair, some say should be causing even greater warming than we are seeing)

a reply to: jimmyx

And scientists never lie?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jimmyx

And scientists never lie?

I an pretty certain that eveyone including you lie. Frequently.

But scientists do not as a rule lie about their findings. Why would they? Though some do get confused when scientists discover something which changes what they used to be thing was true. like when all those astronomers were found be to lying fradusters for sayiing Pluto was the most distant planet from the Sun ..... Think about it!

a reply to: AndyMayhew

you have not addressed my point - where in history has global warming been a bad thing.

As a matter of fact, you are not the only one to address my points.

I brought forward information that not widely known prior to september 2015 (trees number 3 trillion, not 400 billion AND the discovery of a massive source of abiotic V.O.Cs ) both of which would cause global cooling.

The sound of crickets was all I got!

I think this is now a confidence trick. No matter what anyone says - take no new evidence into account and do not respond. Stick to your main talking point (scientists are right no matter what), allow no point to your opponent under any circumstances.

Tired of Control Freaks

To really move on, we need to first think of the following.

The earth is warming. We know that. We should agree on that fact first.
If those scientists and scientific organizations that believe the warming trend is being caused by man, then we must ask ourselves what if they are right. What can we do and what are the solutions?
If they are wrong? That's even more troubling because how can hundreds of thousands of scientists be wrong? Did they all forget what the scientific method is? Did they all get bribed be shell oil? Hmmmm

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: AndyMayhew

you have not addressed my point - where in history has global warming been a bad thing.

Today

its the first time in the past 4,500,000,000 years when it has occurred when there has been a semi-sentient species inhabiting most of the planet, with major concentrations in coastal regions and dependent on current climate to ensure their ability to feed themselves.

Moreover, it is the first time that any semi-sentient species has been able to directly affect the climate, and to show no concerns when they do so to their own detriment. Unless thats why dinosapiens died out?

Of course, apart from humans, its not an issue.

a reply to: amazing

Well to start with:

Instead of focussing all the efforts and dwindling resources on trying to change a plantary system like climate, how about focusing our efforts on what we need to do for adaptation?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: AndyMayhew

BTW - exactly what detriment have you or anyone else seen?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Now here is something else that what was NOT known when the climate models were created for the IPPC.

ttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_global_cooling_factor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

Another one of nature's little surprises.

Tired of Control Freaks

This is complete B.S. sorry.

See this thread on ATS about it. Or at least the last few posts on it to see why.

e: I guess I should qualify that statement - the "massive cooling" part is B.S. The effect exists, but it is minuscule; it accounts for less than 0.6% of global isoprene emissions. "Massive" it is not.