Relax everyone - new NASA study says double CO2 no big deal

THe referenced research is in GRL so it will take more than a moment for me to grab a copy. If anyone is curious to read it let me know.

Back from an internet-free zone! it was very ... peaceful

AFAIK so far, the Arsenic-y bacteria from the sediments of Mono Lake (still) use P for lots of things. The As is just (oddly) used to fasten the rungs on the DNA ladder. Much more on that later as well, but it will be hard to connect to climate change etc.

 

No mate, but that's an interesting scenario, 12/21/2012 is supposedly the date the Mayan calendar ends thus signifying the "End of Days". '
Just how exactly is up to what you read, a Comet crashing into the planet, the Planetary Alignment is such, that massive earthquakes rock the world, Yellowstone blows and puts the planet into "Nuclear Winter" for years....you get the idea!
Google it, you will be amazed at what people come up with

 

biologists at some leading universities are questioning the science and claiming the experiments were done improperly. more to come i suppose.

 

Remember peak oil? There isn't enough fossil fuel on the planet to get us to doubled CO2. But if we keep cutting down rainforests and paving giant mall parking lots, we CAN get real climate change...

 

5: Even if AGW is real, we don't want any government controlled intrusion in the solution, as it will come in the form of "government control" and increase taxes, which we don't wish to pay, even though we are off loading our energy/environmental choices onto future generations.

 

Sophistry at this stage of the game, troll ?

You jump from solar flares to volcanoes to 100 other discredited notions to explain why CO2 is not the crux of GW -- at least when you are not arguing that the earth is not warming at all.

And you post statements like this

that put you square in the camp of loonies.

I'm afraid being called a liar by a loony troll just does not matter to me. Try to find someone who takes you at all seriously to insult. It will not be this forum to be sure.

 

Again, why don't you point out where the study says this? I still don't see that in the NASA press release.

 

i posted this on my FB page when it came out. i am shocked that NASA posed this in the first place especially when its based on conjecture. yes, i can agree that certain aspects of GCC will cause the Earth to be cooler than it is now, but to say that change will not significantly affect our lives is presumptuous at best and completely irresponsible at worst.

the article fuels the debate and provides momentum for the wrong side. it also ignores other ramifications of increased CO2. we still dont know what could happen in the plant and microbe world. there is still the potential that a microbe that is currently a nuisance and easy to control could flourish in a higher CO2 environment and wreak havoc on our food chain.

all in all, i am simply shocked that NASA proposed such a one sided article.

 

Do you have the slightest idea of what the potential effect of even 1.6 average temp increase is likely to to in the high latitudes? Especially to the permafrost?

Jeeze,, get a clue through that right wing head of yours!

Icarus

 

Everybody talks about the weather but no one does anything about it.

Then again cancun failed, and it was destined to fail. Because of CO2 limits a government in Norway fell, and they decided to continue to import coal electricity instead of build a cleaner NG power plant, as the cleaner plant would be counted against their co2 goal.

If you watched that inconvient movie, and believed some of the doom and gloom, we should be having disasters befall us at a much greater rate. The question is how much will minor kyoto reductions really make? Follow the models and small changes as per the conferences will not change warming much. In texas there are more trees than in the 1800s, but the paving of the world is also part of AGW. Simply cutting CO2 a little bit in US while china and india take up the slack won't avert disaster if they were coming, or lack of this will not cause disasters if they were not.

In a side note, GE this week became a little browner, buying a oil company with big exposure to developing markets. Without cancun the bet on "ecomagination" and green power is being hedged with brown power. More co2 is making Europe colder and will cause other problems, but we need real solutions and exaggeration gets in the way.

 

For starters permafrost generally lives on the edge of temperature curves, a bit of warming or a bit of cooling has a significant effect. The biggest issue with permafrost melting is the uncontrolled release of CO2 that is trapped in the ice leading to a feed back loop. Please note that given the greater effect in higher latitudes, the difference between 1.5C world average is likely to be higher at higher latitudes. Please not the consequences of a 2.0C rise effect on permafrost!

For a comprehensive list of learned works if you are genuinely interested in not being a troll!

effect of temperature rise on permafrost - Google Scholar

 

Darryl Cunningham Investigates: Climate Change

Easy to read and understand. Two thumbs up.

 

Uncontrollable release of what??

Oh u said CH4!!

Sorry misunderstood u there for a sec

 

Concerning high latitudes, the Tarnocai et al. 2009 paper might well have received far more attention. Message there was that the soil organic carbon stores appear to be much larger than earlier estimates. So the question is will those soils 'melt' and how. The best news I've read lately is that drying up thataway will slow microbial activity (read CO2 and CH4 outgassing), despite anticipated higher temperatures. OTOH, drying would increase fire frequency, which means CO2 not CH4 outgassing. On balance that would probably be a good thing. Presuming of course that we as a civilization take no interest in limiting CO2 emissions (the current pattern).

I suppose it will be a real horserace at high latitudes, in terms of infrared absorptive gases. The first study referenced here does not ( I think) help us to anticipate what may occur there.

For those interested, see if you can access the penulitimate issue of Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. Those papers set aside the generic 2 degrees C increase (because Co2 emissions 'as usual' could take us fbeyond that) and examined a 4oC warmer world. Bummer warning: it's a bummer.