No shit. And the CO2 molecules above the oceans absorb the IR the oceans then radiate, warming the atmosphere and to some degree rewarming the oceans.
Once we found out they are allergic to raw data and they only use data that has been tampered with, the whole exercise is meaningless.
so your thesis is that the co2 being released by the oceans is a positive feedback mechanism... correct? Why do co2 levels also lag ocean temps as ocean temps fall? what causes that? Is the co2 also cooling the oceans?
really? you have science showing they are net absorbing co2? I think you need to read up on how the bern hypothesis is failing as new studies come out. for instance... this is the first one I clicked on and it shows how unsure they really are. http://www.newscientist.com/article...ase-co2-faster-than-thought.html#.VG-tofnF_3Q As the world's oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study. The oceans capture around 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions and hide it in their depths. This slows the march of global warming somewhat. But climate records from the end of the last ice age show that as temperatures climb, the trend reverses and the oceans emit CO2, which exacerbates warming. Previous studies have suggested that it takes between 400 and 1300 years for this to happen. But now the most precise analysis to date has whittled that figure down. Quick response "We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less," says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study. The new results come from Siple and Byrd ice cores in western Antarctica. Van Ommen and colleagues dated CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice, and then compared their measurements with records of atmospheric temperatures from the same time period. As expected, when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed, but at both Siple and Byrd the time lag was around 200 years – much shorter than previous studies found. Rising temperatures make carbon dioxide leak from the oceans for two main reasons. First, melting sea ice increases the rate that the ocean mixes, which dredges up CO2-rich deep ocean waters. Second, "when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out," says van Ommen. Previous estimates used cores from regions with low snowfall, van Ommen says, leading to a very gradual trapping of the carbon dioxide in the ice. This increased uncertainty in timing. Also, many previous studies used only one ice core site. Worse warming? And while more precise than the others, the team's study also comes with significant uncertainty: plus or minus 200 years, meaning there could actually be no lag time between rising temperatures and gases being released from the atmosphere. "They've nailed it," says Paul Fraser, a greenhouse gas researcher at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). He adds that despite the uncertainty, "this is a really good data set that they've got." Van Ommen says climate modelling will be needed before we can speculate how the results relate to current warming. The work was presented at the Greenhouse 2011 conference in Cairns earlier this month.
I don't know anything about co2 or climate change, but just from a casual observer's point of view, as far as man made co2 it seems to me that deforestation or even paving over a vacant lot in the city would mean less vegetation to absorb co2. Right? or wrong?
1. yes there a plenty who say things like knocking down rain forests and creating crops would have a greater impact than man made co2. 2. NASA tells us it can be a negative feedback also. As you have more co2... the earth gets greener... eating more co2. Converting that sunlight into more sugar. 3. The bottom line is that it is complex system with complex feedback systems... and the agw models are just failing guesses at what is happening. We really do not know.
Point taken, I need to keep it in perspective. The world's movers and shakers are not reading this forum. But I would disagree with you that there is no reason to get excited. The destruction of the biosphere alone - forget the human deaths - that is going to happen, is definitely something to get excited about. I am sad that this is going to happen. If no one shouts loudly no one else will hear. When a ship is about to strike an iceberg calm whispers are not the appropriate response.