Slashdot Mirror
Carbon-Emitting Soil Could Speed Global Warming, Warns 26-Year Study (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quote the Guardian:
Warming soil releases more carbon into the atmosphere than previously thought, suggesting a potentially disastrous feedback mechanism whereby increases in global temperatures will trigger massive new carbon releases in a cycle that may be impossible to break... The 26-year study is one of the biggest of its kind, and is a groundbreaking addition to our scant knowledge of exactly how warming will affect natural systems. Potential feedback loops, or tipping points, have long been suspected to exist by scientists, and there is some evidence for them in the geological record. What appears to happen is that once warming reaches a certain point, these natural biological factors kick in and can lead to a runaway, and potentially unstoppable, increase in warming...
In the Science study, researchers examined plots of soil in the Harvard Forest in Massachusetts, a mixed hardwood forest in the U.S. They experimented by heating some of the plots with underground cables to 5C above normal levels, leaving others as a control. The long-term study revealed that in the first 10 years there was a strong increase in the carbon released from the heated plots, then a period of about seven years when the carbon release abated. But after this second calmer period, which the scientists attribute to the adjustment of the soil microbes to the warmer conditions, the release of carbon resumed its upward path. From 1991, when the experiment began, the plots subjected to 5C warming lost about 17% of the carbon that had been stored in the top 60cm of the soil, where the greatest concentration of organic matter is to be found...
Lead scientist Jerry Melillo, points out that currently 10 billion metric tons of carbon gets released into the atmosphere every year, but "The world's soils contain about 3,500 billion tons of carbon. If a significant amount of that is added to the atmosphere, due to microbial activity, that will accelerate the global warming process. Once this self-reinforcing feedback begins, there is no easy way to turn it off. There is no switch to flip."
In the Science study, researchers examined plots of soil in the Harvard Forest in Massachusetts, a mixed hardwood forest in the U.S. They experimented by heating some of the plots with underground cables to 5C above normal levels, leaving others as a control. The long-term study revealed that in the first 10 years there was a strong increase in the carbon released from the heated plots, then a period of about seven years when the carbon release abated. But after this second calmer period, which the scientists attribute to the adjustment of the soil microbes to the warmer conditions, the release of carbon resumed its upward path. From 1991, when the experiment began, the plots subjected to 5C warming lost about 17% of the carbon that had been stored in the top 60cm of the soil, where the greatest concentration of organic matter is to be found...
Lead scientist Jerry Melillo, points out that currently 10 billion metric tons of carbon gets released into the atmosphere every year, but "The world's soils contain about 3,500 billion tons of carbon. If a significant amount of that is added to the atmosphere, due to microbial activity, that will accelerate the global warming process. Once this self-reinforcing feedback begins, there is no easy way to turn it off. There is no switch to flip."
But you had to sit on it... well, now itâ(TM)s too late.
Global warming effects the habitability of every region for every organism, bacterial included. Before denialists complain on economic costs they must recognize the second layer of economics impacts from damage to the base agrarian sector that powers all of the economy. Humans require food to live, to use and to make everything else. We face quick changes that disrupt our existing transportation and market networks that distribute these resources, as well reduction in total yields. That damage and the cost of that damage dwarf all complaints about the costs of responding, through limits and changes in production techniques, and through transition to alternative sources of fuels and electricity.
Bring those recently cancelled nuke reactors back? Didn't think so
Ok banning it might not work. I say we tax possession of soil, maybe with a carbon credit system. Fallback plan: take all of this 'soil' and bury it deep, preferably under tons of dirt. As any politician knows, burying things takes care of them once and for all. /s
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
you are a fucking retard
russian trolls are retarded
Any spot with sunshine on Earth surface instantly heats surrounding ground, waters, plants, animals and atmosphere around us. It's physics law of thermodynamics,
Uh, if you actual do the simple physics you claim explains everything, you get that the heat from the Sun would heat the Earth to a colder temperature than actually seen, but which matches the mean temperature of the Moon. Turns out, despite all of that solar radiation, the Sun alone is not enough to heat Earth to a good temperature for life, and the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere makes a rather significant difference.
I'm impressed by the fact that 26 years ago, some scientists put underground cables to warm the soil 5C and kept it that way for 26 years.
I'm glad somebody even thought of this that long ago, it was (for most people) not on their radar. Who knows what other studies were proposed and were denied because of the political climate from the (Bush) administration. Then again, maybe it was funded by the university. Go Hahvahd!
To the deniers: If we agree on nothing else can we at least agree on continuing to fund well planned scientific studies on the climate? If you really think there is no truth to this then you should be all for it, all the data is public and in fact you can run the studies yourselves! I've always thought that the TRUTH may come from people you completely disagree with.
It would be a crime if due to the political winds/lobbyists these studies were denied, it's like an ostrich sticking its head into the ground (do they really do that?). It's would be like how federal studies into the links between gun ownership and gun violence is PROHIBITED or how the federal government isn't allowed to even negotiate for lower drug prices (despite being a huge buyer, through medicare/medicaid).
Two things are crippling America: poor basic education in some parts of America due to widely uneven funding based on local communities resources (kinda defeats the idea of giving the next generation a fair chance). The other is legalized corruption by allowing unlimited corporate donations to politicians; for example this has resulted in American health care costs being more than twice that of the next country in the entire world! (With worse outcomes)
We will all be dead by the time this becomes a problem anyway. The only way to really solve this problem is to go back to the stone ages. You don't see any of those Prius driving hipsters screaming about the environment wanting to do without their technology or lifestyles. Their whole thing about environmental issues is just their inner control freak wanting to force their view of the world onto others. They could give two fucks about the environment just from their own behavior driving cars full of toxic waste.
It's a lost cause. Just accept it.
Pave the Earth.
One People.
One Planet.
One Sheet of Asphalt.
(and yes, this *****IS***** sarcasm. . . )
> The sun's total energy that hits the planet Earth surface is 174 000 Terawats of heat energy every year. Humanity generates only about 25 Terawatts of enegy annually [...]
Warming is about the retention of (some fraction of) those 174 petawatt (no I didn't check the numbers), not about a bit more or less of those 25 terawatt (no, I didn't check the numbers).
You stupid, drooling trumpbot.
You are confusing energy with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
If your numbers are correct, the point is not the relative energy generation of humans vs the sun, but that due to the higher CO2 concentration caused by humans, more of those 174 000 Terawats of heat energy from the sun that you mention will be retained in the atmosphere.
Energy is not measured in watts.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
The atmosphere is clearly fake news... if there were something covering the whole planet, 10's of thousands of feet of it, I think we'd have seen it by now!
Clearly there is no atmosphere, and "air" is just a myth created by the LIBERAL MEDIA to control us by making us think we have to breathe... I stopped breathing weeks ago and I encourage all good hard working americans, the ones who can see through the liberal media's lies, to do the same, it's the only way we can get the message across to the liberal media that we aren't listening any more!
Any serious response to that obvious troll bot is even more retarded!
But then I saw your second response down below. Kudos to you, sir!
The collective methane emissions of 7.6 billion people on the planet could be affecting global warming, ban farting. I know... humans in general could be causing global warming, ban humans. Actually the sad thing is, if humans were removed from the picture, global warming wouldn't be an issue because 1) humans are probably the root cause and 2) if there are no humans it would be like the Bugs Bunny Road Runner movie:
In the beginning,
...but usually it was just a small one...
...only a million miles or so in diameter.
...until you realized that
...things went along
...very deep in a sixth-rate galaxy
...circling around
...on a tenth-rate planet,
all was peaceful and quiet.
Quite dark, too.
Once in a while, a star exploded...
Anyway, nobody complained,
which was odd...
there wasn't nobody around to complain.
So for about 15 or 20 billion years...
smoothly and pleasantly.
Until one day...
called the Milky Way...
a fourth-rate star called the Sun...
a strange creature appeared.
A strange creature called man.
We'll make great pets
Hmmm, I wonder... "conventional wisdom" has been that all of the paving humanity has been doing has created heat islands that are increasing localized global warming. But given this research, I am left to wonder: is there an offset? Clearly I'd think that paving or building over large plots of arid land would certainly squelch this CO2 emission. Of course, there is the carbon cost of the manufacture/construction to consider, but have we perhaps been abating something we didn't even know existed (or, at least, know was a significant CO2 source)? It would seem to me the next logical step for this group would be to pave or concrete over part of one of their experimental plots, accounting for the CO2 "cost" in doing so, and compare. I hate to see all the parking lots and acre-sized warehouses that are overtaking the lush green in my area, but...
(Also, causes me to ponder fictional planets like Coruscant or Trantor.)
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Tell it to Venus and Mars (runaway cooling in second case).
As for the last 11 inter-glacial periods.. in how many of them so much of fossil fuel was burned? Technology and population density changed a bit since last interglacial...
http://phenomena.nationalgeogr...
http://northernwoodlands.org/d...
Mars has no magnetic field, that is the reason it has no atmosphere, hence cold.
The fact that you brought it up as a point to make an AGW point and are too stupid to have known means anything else you post is probably wrong. You liberals as so dumb and think just because a bunch of other idiots vote you up, you "must" be smart. No, it means you all wallow in such ignorance and are actually proud of how stupid you are.
Sad.
It "could" speed global warming (though some mysterious mechanism wherein Carbon somehow causes warming).
But it also "could not."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you think banning bump stocks would have stopped that guy... then I don't think you've been paying attention.
The guy set up a whole video surveillance system around his hotel room. He planned everything out for months.
Let us say we outright banned guns entirely... do you think criminals wouldn't have guns?
Naturally they would. The Mexican Cartels have them and guns are actually pretty hard to legally own in mexico. And yet the cartels have machine guns and whatever else they want.
Most gun homocides are committed with ILLEGAL guns already. Its mostly inner city drug and gang violence. And gangbangers do not go through background checks to buy guns. They buy black market guns off the street often with the serial numbers filed off. They're not hard to find or buy.
Look at the war on drugs for another example of how utterly pointless this idea is... have you been able to get crack off the streets? Heroin? Nope. Why? Because there is a market for it and you can't fight the market. The Soviet Union couldn't fight the market. There is a black market in maximum security prison. You can buy drugs and get cell phones and other stuff in SUPER MAX PRISON. So.... you think you can control the market on the streets of the USA? Ha. Ha. Ha.
Passing laws will effect LAW ABIDING americans. However, Criminals are going to break laws because... they're "criminals". And guess what, methodical mass murderers that plan out their rampages years in advance are going to go on a rampage no matter what thing you ban. They'll just kill you with something else.
We have seen mass murders done with all sorts of weapons... Cars, fires, air planes, bombs, knives, poison gas, and even that whole anthrax thing.
We've seen people blow up buildings with fertilizer. Exactly where do you think this ends?
Look... you ban what you want. I don't really care about bump stocks. Ban em'. But it won't make any difference.
And while you're doing that, keep in mind that in the urban heart of every major city in the USA there are HUNDREDS of murders in EACH city every year. Urban drug and gang violence... mostly black and Hispanic men killing other black and Hispanic men... Assuming anyone wants to go all BLM on this issue.
Anyone care about that? Someone dies in those neighborhoods almost every day in every city in this country.
They kill each other with illegal guns, knives, or just beat each other to death. My city has about 600 murders per year... most of the death comes out of those neighborhoods... roughly 80 percent. Tiny fraction of the total population. Its a war zone.
But you care about that, right?
Why don't you pass law to actually ENFORCE existing gun laws by going after illegal guns? Take some of the illegal guns off the streets. Going after the millions of law abiding and overwhelmingly peaceful people that own guns simply because some random psycho goes on a rampage every so often is irrational. You're not going to stop men like this by attacking law abiding people. We're not the ones that go on rampages. And all things being equal, you want us armed rather than not. Because the criminals and psychos will be armed. Wouldn't it be nice if people that weren't criminals and psychos were also armed?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Well you are just being a unsmart person, mister dumbly-dumbo.
Climate change is now a totally proven factological theory, and it's also known to be 100% true. It's why all the bad weather happens, because Al Gore said so. What are you, stupid or something?
No wonder it came up with fake results. The erth has been around what, 5000 years now. A 26 year study is a *fraction* of that, and we know there was cold times, just last winter I made a snowball and had to shovel the snow off my driveway but here we are once again with "scientists" saying the world is warming. What utter nonsense.
Wouldn;t the cycle be:
* Carbon builds up and increase heat
* Ocean evaperate
* Carbon and other particalate form clouds
* Rain scrubs out the carbon and the cycle resets
Also, are we coming out the Little Ice Age? So the heating is mostly natural?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
>Disastrous feed back cycle impossible to break
Immediately disproven by the fact that we have had higher temperatures in the past and are not currently Venus. This is what passes for scientific thought these days.
The Carbon Cycle is well understood. Of the CO2 emitted by human activity, half of that ends up in the atmosphere, the other half ends up in sinks. Half of that half goes into the ocean and the remaining half of that half goes into the soil.
The reservoir capacity of the ocean is vast, orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. What prevents all of the CO2 from diffusing into the ocean is 1) the equilibrium of atmospheric and ocean CO2 follows a non-linear roughly 10th-power relationship owing to the chain of chemical reactions by which CO2 is "dissolved" (rather chemically bonded into soluble carbonates) and 2) there is a finite rate of mixing of the surface ocean layer with the deep layer. This model of the ocean along with some assumptions regarding the cycling of carbon between the atmosphere and the soils on land gives an accurate trace of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 290 ppm at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to over 400 ppm today. It also predicts the carbon isotope concentrations along with the seemingly short lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere from the rapid extinction of radioactive C14 from atmospheric H-bomb testing that (mostly) ended in the mid 1960s -- this has to do with the non-linear absorption of CO2 by the ocean, which exchanges CO2 molecules at a high rate but resists requires greater changes in atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 to shift the chemical equilibrium. This may seem counter to intuition, but this is well understood P-Chem.
Even though only half of the CO2 emitted by humans ends up in the atmosphere on account of the sinks, just about all of the increase in CO2 is the fault of humans. That is, unless there is a natural source of thermally stimulated emission of CO2 that needs to be taken into account.
It is perhaps not widely known, but there is a large fluctuation in the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2. The fluctuation is of comparable magnitude as the human contribution that is believed to be much more steady -- we have boom and bust cycles in industrial output, but the variations are not quite that much.
You may not have heard of this fluctuation, but NOAA's Carbon Cycle Guru Pieter Tans certainly knows about it. He attributes it to the effect of temperature changes on the rotting of fallen leaves and other litter in the tropical rainforests. He claims that the leaves that fall are very quickly rotted away, releasing most of their carbon back as CO2 into the atmosphere. His claim is that owing to the rapid decay of dead plant matter under tropical conditions, the reservoir is small. It accounts for the correlation between temperature and increase in atmospheric CO2 (called "net emissions), only occurring over short time windows. This correlation exists over longer time scales, but matters get fuzzy because human CO2 has ramped up over a time of gradual warming.
Were you to believe Pieter Tans (yes, believe as much of this is based on modeling assumptions), there is minimal effect of decades-long increase in atmospheric temperature in driving CO2 emissions from the soil -- the decades-long increase is all attributed to the decades long gradual increase in industrial emissions with minimal contribution from warming of soils. Were you to regard NOAA's top Carbon Cycle dude as wrong, that increasing temperature drives a positive feedback of CO2 emissions over longer times than the year-to-year fluctuations seen in the atmospheric CO2 "Keeling curve", which TFA does, you would have already seen the effect on atmospheric CO2 because the climate has indeed been warming for most of the 20th century -- it has been warming, has it not, that is, unless you are a Climate Change Denier?
If contra-Pieter Tans Head of the Carbon Cycle Section at NOAA the long term temperature trend is stimulating CO2 emissions from the soil in a positive feedback, there must be a countervailing negative feedback in the form of a commensurately higher absorption of CO2 by plants, an absorption that is sens
Remember this scary shit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I wonder if there could be any other "guns" we don't know about. Ah the joys of running an unintentional, unplanned geoengineering experiment on your only habitable planet.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
take all the carbon, keep as much as need, box the rest up and shoot it into space. jobs a goodun, get trump on it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Your 175 TW to 25 TW comparison refers to heat dissipation, which is trivial compared to the warming effect of greenhouse gas emitted by the fossil fuel share of our 25 TW.
Yes, our climate models are not very good at telling us how much of the weather we experience year on year is altered by manmade carbon. It’s just a good idea for us not to go on making the problem worse.
Absolutely wrong, where did you learn this nonsense? We aren't crawling up anything that could appear to be a natural spike, we've made our own spike in what should be a trough:
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
The earth should be cooling now, if there were no anthropogenic climate effects.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If this tipping point is truly an issue, it's a good thing we're heading into a solar minimum. This could be our opportunity to reduce our carbon emissions and slow things down during a time when the temperature will be trending down for a decent amount of time (I've heard a number of estimates, most of them at least a decade). At the minimum we have an opportunity to delay the tipping point, we'll see I guess.
Exactly. You're not going to stop people like that by going after law abiding common people. The methodical psychos get off in part on getting around the laws. its in part a game for these people. People have gone on rampages pretty much in every country except literal police states. And even then, people might go on rampages but who would know given that there isn't a free press to report on it.
Remember that huge explosion in china that took out like four city blocks? Anyone know exactly what happened there? You never will know. You've got official government reports that can't really be totally trusted... period full stop.
Look, the occasional maniac can't be stopped. Its impossible. Ban all the guns and these people will just drive a gasoline semi truck into a TGI Fridays and detonate it while masturbating from the other side of the road.
If you want to save lives, do something about the urban drug and gang violence. Or maybe look at the suicides which make up about 60 percent of all gun deaths.
Instead what does everyone focus on? Cops killing people which makes up less than a percent of homicides... and the maniac shooters which makes up less than a percent of a percent of a percent of homicides.
Its dumb. If we care about saving lives, we'll focus on something else. If we're trying to use a a tragedy to fuel a divergent agenda then we'll talk about this vegas bullshit as if getting rid of bump stocks will do anything.
We're in the age of the 3d printer, kids. It won't be long before everyone has any gun they want in their garage.
Think.
They didn't stop booze by banning it. They didn't stop drugs by banning them. You haven't made any progress at doing anything with guns by banning them. And very soon things are going to hilarious with the advent of increasingly sophisticated 3d printers.
And for people to not get this on slashdot... silly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
3d printed full metal 1911 pistol.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Well, let's assume the periodic cycle you are talking about is driven by climactic restoring forces rather than exogenous forces like orbital forcing. Even that assumption doesn't lead an ironclad conclusion that there is no point of no return. The oscillating behavior is the product of underlying system processes that could conceivably be disrupted by sufficiently large change -- like stretching a coil spring until it becomes a wire.
But let's just assume there are restoring forces that will undo any anthropogenic changes. They don't work overnight; in fact in the data you allude to they take 36,000 years to reverse direction. So for us, and our descendants for hundreds of generations, there may as well not be any return. Even on the timescale of civilization lifespans that's a long time.
And that's really what the big climate change concern is: not the survival of the species, but the stress that the change will place on civilizations, which will manifest itself as destabilizing financial costs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The reason I say this is because it didn't happen in the pass. What may happen is a jump in the temperature large enough to render large parts of the tropic inhabitable. That includes most of the Southern and Middle United States. You do need to know that the fossil extraction industry does believe a decade of profit is more important to them than your survival.
So, with all of this doom and gloom, where exactly is all of this warming we're being warned about? What do you mean it's not actually happening? Someone must be wrong somewhere...
You realize you just responded to an AC troll, right?
You are welcome on my lawn.
We've already banned humans (evil carbon producers), just ban soil.
Kevin Costner says if we wait long enough, the soil problem will take care of itself.
Specifically about 3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of atmospheric carbon, which works out to be about 1 degree C. Unfortunately, most of the world's surface also happens to be covered with reservoirs of a much better greenhouse gas, which not only is leaping to be a part of this atmospheric party, but which can be dissolved in exponentially greater amounts with increased temperatures. Not one of those kind and gentle exponents either, as anyone from the South ought to be able to attest.
Waste heat from human processes will also become an issue if our energy use continues to rise, but we have probably a few hundred years even assuming current growth rates continue indefinitely. In the meantime we have a feedback issue to deal with.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Once upon a time, there was an enormous amount of phytoplankton in a warm shallow ocean, which died and sank and became carbon-dense oil precursor rocks. These migrated northward to be buried thousands of feet beneath the frozen wastes of what is now the North Slope of Alaska. The normal decay of plants and animals produces minuscule amounts of oil and is unrelated to the oil in the arctic, or the formation of large oil deposits generally. And whether there are "nutrients" in the dirt is actually rather irrelevant, because the difference between rock, sand, and frozen mud, and fertile soil is a whole ecosystem of fungi and bacteria.
It would be about as easy to farm the North Slope as it would be to farm the Sahara.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Releasing carbon? What kind of carbon? Soot? Graphite? Diamonds? Coal? Buckyballs? Graphene?
Almost as if there has been a natural control on global warming and cooling that has existed for millions of years.
There are several such sinks. Plants aren't a particularly good one, but CO2 also dissolves readily in water, and in the longer term silicate weathering is an excellent way to get rid of excess carbon. The problem is that those things aren't working well enough. We know they're not working well enough because the CO2 levels are rising.
Climate has not ever been stable -- that would be the 19th-century view of things. When we started discovering signs of Ice Ages, it was clear that this "warm years are balanced with cold ones" theory could not account for a world which produced mile-high glaciers across Europe. Various persons in the early 20th century calculated that, far from being stable, changes of the order of a few percent difference in albedo at the poles could begin a feedback cycle that would massively disrupt the planet. Of the various theories of climate change that resulted, carbon dioxide has proved to be the most concerning, since it has been known since the mid-19th century that many human processes produced large amounts of 'carbonic acid'.
So do you want to try again with an argument not from the 19th century?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Well it's clearly true because we took a vote. And voting is at the core of science. How else do you think we knew all four elements?
I'm talking to myself...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
AGW is a theory of climate change. Theories of climate change were a response to the "static climate" theories (read: assumptions based on Christian theology). It was widely believed that humans could not affect the planet, but we kept finding evidence of ice ages, and so there were a number of theories of climate change that arose in the 19th Century. Just before the dawn of the 20th Century, a guy named Arrhenius proposed a CO2-induced theory of climate change, which after being considered debunked for five decades has gained near-universal support.
Deniers would like to believe that there is some naming conspiracy, which is at this point probably nothing more than a litmus test to see if you'll believe other kookery. Someone failed to inform the IPCC that they had the wrong acronym, I guess? But the conspiracy also assumes that you're not smart enough to figure out that, to the degree that there has been any change in terminology, it's because of Frank Luntz and George W. Bush. In actual fact, the terms "climate change" and "AGW" are closely related but distinct terms, which only tend to be synonymous when discussing current climate issues. I can't think why exactly this conspiracy theory would be meaningful if true, but you should probably avoid the argument unless the goal is to look incredibly stupid.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Learn to understand scales. What you're talking about is basically noise.
Did you even look at my link? Note the scales changing on the x-axis. Your data DOES appear.
Yours from Skeptical Science (a good site, btw) show scales of decades and one with centuries. I'm talking 1000+ year scales. Look at the 20ky-200ky span. Pulse...decline....pulse....decline...pulse....decline.... What do YOU think would come next in that series?
-Styopa
See subject: Whoever the fool is attempting to "impersonate me" only proves that I've REALLY 'gotten to them' somehow (thanks)...
* I am with you on something though - there is a TON of bogus downmoderation but as the saying goes? "When all your opposition has is censorship you've obviously won" (& I am highly against the LOON(s) who shot all those folks up in Vegas - I think it's somekind of falseflag OR an attempt @ further dividing our nation up ala the KING of bogus evil in that capacity, George Soros paying off groups like BLM & Antifa to do so...) - but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE - people do. NO reason to ban guns!
As far as "AssFux" Ash-Fox? That whimp's a weasel who ALWAYS starts w/ me (he's 'butthurt' I've busted him up on tech issues is all that is)...
APK
P.S.=> Provoking weasel reactions like yours is all the satisfaction anyone needs... apk
People talking about "tipping points" are something of a problem. Probably "inflection points" would be better. However, most people only talk about "runaway" warming because they're deniers who want to use it as a "reductio ad absurdum". There are a handful of researchers who have got up on their hind legs and said that a Venus-type runaway scenario is possible on Earth, and while this sort of thing cannot be entirely discounted, the consensus view is that we can't keep the atmosphere hot enough for long enough to enter a 'true runaway' scenario. On the scale of 10e4-10e5 years silicate weathering and other long-term sinks should take care of the excess carbon. However, unless you're good on waiting until then, that does leave us with a bit of a short-term carbon problem.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You seem to be asserting that an irregular temperature spike is happening right now, against the shorter-term factors I linked to earlier and the fact that we should be entering an ice age. Those spikes aren't happening at regular intervals, the interval between them has almost tripled over the last million years, as the article I linked to points out. You're expecting the next one to arrive at the same interval as the last one did, when you should instead expect it to arrive later. This would mean we should be in a cooling period which brings us back in line with the best scientific evidence.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I think it's pretty interesting to have a comment where one merely links to a scientific study modded as "Troll". Boy, does that speak volumes.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Oh, that's OK then. Carry on.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I have no idea what you mean by "restoring" forces, sorry. What I meant to say is that the geologic record going back nearly 1 million years shows a cycle of cooling and heating. Everyone in this debate wants to focus on warming, but for some odd reason no one ever brings up the other side of the cycle. I find such cherry-picking very odd.
If the argument is that humankind has reversed a 1 million-year-old trend (!), I would say that is an extraordinary claim and would want extraordinary evidence.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
If only we *were* crawling up on one of those spikes as you say...
The problem is, we're not crawling up one of those spikes, we're rocketing up on one, with no sign that we are about to level off (ie, our speed is still increasing).
Changes in tenths of degrees normally take several millenia, but here we are measuring such changes in mere decades, or two orders of magnitude faster than anything we ever seen or measured before.
Scroll down to the bottom of this picture to see how amazing recent measurements really are: https://xkcd.com/1732/
Please stick to the topic at hand, which is the geologic record of the earth.
Not Venus.
For as far back as we can directly observe, the earth has exhibited cycles of cooling and warming. If your argument is now that mankind has reversed this nearly 1 million-year-old trend, I would say that is not just an extraordinary claim, it is perhaps the most extraordinary claim in all of the history of science. And I would like to see the mountain of extraordinary evidence you have that proves your claim.
I just don't like sloppy science, period. Do a back of the envelope calculation of the amount of heating and cooling we are talking about to change an entire world's temperature from ice 2 miles thick to the wonderfully warm climate we have today, and then compare that to the total energy that would ever be trapped in a chaotic feedback system by a century-long use of fossil fuels. It's a pittance.
If you want to make wild claims, show me the science.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Once a post has been seen enough times, it is no longer intelligent. You are a broken record and since you haven't been aware of my previous post, I will repeat it again at the risk of not being intelligent. Automatic fire wastes ammo that would have been put to more effective use killing people had the shooter actually aimed, thus auto actually saves lives, you moron.
Can't we just pull it from the air and make stuff with it?
I'm talking about negative feedback, which is an essential element of any system which exhibits oscillatory behavior in the absence of external drivers.
How you feel about a million year "trend" has been reversed is neither here nor there as to whether it has happened. What matters is evidence. The current thinking based on our best evidence is that the climate cycles you are referring to are caused by variations in insolation due to orbital forcing. However if that is true the current era should be cooling.
The past patterns of climate are not governed by some kind of mystic law, like astrology. They are caused by quantifiable physical phenomena.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I intend to eat dirt, you know the stuff with carbon in it that the article complains heating up releases carbon making the planet heat up, because my body is partly made out of carbon. Other animals can potentially eat dirt too, so eating plant animal and mineral.
Everybody needs to react impulsively to this news and call for a ban on this stuff.
Why are we still about this? Warming can not be stopped anymore, the Earth is pretty much destroyed already. Now we should focus on deciding how we are going to live from now on. We need to decide:
- What are we going to eat instead of fish?
- Are we going to kill poor people or do we let people just randomly die and kill each other?
- Where are people of the cost going to live as they lose their homes? Or do we just kill them also?
- Do we try to somehow record the scientific research we have done, as the end of the world is probably going to cause most of the computers and books to be destroyed.
Switzerland has a law requiring all men in a certain age range to be armed. Any mass shootings in Switzerland that you know of?
France bans guns. Didn't help the people who worked at Charlie Hebdo.
No-one on this planet needs access to an automatic rifle of any kind at home, only if you are in the forces so you require this kind of weapon.
Fuck you. The whole 20th century is a lesson in what governments do to unarmed populations.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I can't speak for the moderators, but if I were moderating that post, I would vote it down because of the supposed conclusion:
The geologic record completely contradicts the entire notion of "tipping points" or "runaway" heating from which there is no return.
This just is not true. And I honestly think that the moderation system needs a better way to motivate the moderation.
(AC because I have been moderating, although not the post under discussion, or the parent post.)
Naturally they would. The Mexican Cartels have them and guns are actually pretty hard to legally own in mexico. And yet the cartels have machine guns and whatever else they want.
Right, because we sold them to them...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Changes in tenths of degrees normally take several millenia
Says who? There's absolutely no long term temperature proxy that can reflect a decade long temperature change, in either direction. The proxies that exist that proxy times more than 1000 years ago are all very low resolution. There is no evidence whatsoever that temperatures "normally" change in several millenia, because there is no proxy with the resolution to indicate shorter term changes in the first place.
I love Randall as much as the next guy, but he overreached with that graphic.
No kidding. If he had spent less money on guns and bump stocks and just got one really good gun with a laser rangefinding night optics package, the story would have been a lot worse. And you can just order the super fancy-pants scopes up off le internet in every state, you don't need to see a gun dealer.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Learn to check source data, don't rely on graph resolution.
Then you'd see that, 120k years ago, a positive change of 0.5 deg C took place over approximately 800 years. The upward slope of that spike in the graph? that covers about 7000 years. It's not comparable. Although some of the same feedback mechanisms may be in play.
Sure, because absent the US selling guns, your argument is the cartels wouldn't have guns.
Don't be silly.
Criminals in Belgium have guns. Did you know that? Capital of the EU is actually one of the hearts of european illegal gun trafficking.
Also, cocaine is I believe as of last test... more common on the waters of Antwerp than any other major city in the world.
You have about a hundred years of really good statistics showing how completely ineffective bans are in these matters.
It didn't stop people getting alcohol
It didn't stop people getting drugs... Including heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.
And guess what? It doesn't stop people getting guns.
the ignorance on the issue is that people don't look at the gun statistics before and after these bans. They merely compare country X with country Y.
This is about as rational as comparing Japanese obesity statistics with the US for example and then interjecting some irrelevant nutritional guideline... and pretending like that has any result in the matter.
Look at UK or Australian gun homicides BEFORE their bans and compare them to what they are now. You'll see that the bans didn't actually move the needle.
Mexico has the bans and you can see what they have to deal with.
And as I said, we're entering the world of the 3d Printer...
The bans only stop people that obey the law. There is a misunderstanding as to how you control criminal behavior. And it isn't a law.
This man did nothing before his rampage to flag him as criminal. Attacking everyone that is law abiding because you lack any way of separating the sheep from the goats is counter productive.
You're also dealing with smart and methodical psychopaths. There's nothing in any proposed law change that is going to stop a man like this... these are the sorts of guys that always get through the checks. The only way you're going to protect yourself from people like this is by walling yourself off from everyone.
Short of a total police state... this guy will have been unchecked.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually he apparently had the fixings for some DIY improvised explosives. If the nuttball didn't have the guns he would have gone with the bomb option which would have had a much higher death toll. Good luck outlawing everything that can be used to make a bomb.
Why don't you start here and let us know where you get hung up. The total energy captured by a century of fossil fuel use is going to have some relatively wide error bars, but it's almost exactly as much as required for the climatic shift you mention. Curiously enough, the relation of CO2 levels to ice ages was exactly the topic of Arrhenius' 1896 paper which originated the Theory of AGW. The exact number has varied slightly, but that a halving or doubling of CO2 levels could cause or reverse an Ice Age is an undisputed result for something more than a century now. If you've gone thus far without reading anything scientific on this matter, Arrhenius isn't a bad place to start. After that I imagine that you will be interested in the many reasons that his work was entirely dismissed for the next five decades, as being the best hopes for actually, say, coming up with a semi-plausible reason why AGW isn't true.
I'm not sure what in particular you're claiming doesn't exist (or is it just a need to be spoon fed?) but the science is most certainly out there. The "back of the envelope" science you're asking for is found in literally the oldest paper on the topic. Consider doing us the favor of reading it.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
PROXY!!!
Why would I be "fuming"? I'm laughing my ass off.
Because I'm smarter than you and I know that you're lying, duh. Hell, you even admit to being insulted.
Therefore, it is obviously I who got the first, last and every laugh in between, even though I'm not the original A/C. But, like I said, you just go ahead and pretend what you need to to get by in life.
Now you go have yourself a nice little day now. :P /conversation
Warming soil releases more CO2 only if you are talking about areas with permafrost thawing and releasing 10,000 plus year old vegetation that now decays.
The higher rate of decay in above freezing forests doesn't increase the carbon footprint but simply accelerates the processing of the natural cycle.
Releasing carbon bound up in the soil during earlier epochs raises the atmospheric carbon loading. Cycling what is already there does not. Basics, basics, basics.
NRRPT/RCT