Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers..it's all overwhelming.

We all know, or should know "The Koch Foundation provided funding to physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, a longtime climate-change skeptic, to disprove the widespread consensus on global warming. Instead, his re-analysis showed the exact same warming trend found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists."

"Since completing his research last year, Muller has been vociferously speaking out on the reality of human-caused climate change, including in testimony before Congress."


Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions
An analysis of Greenland ice core samples indicates significant global methane emissions per capita during the Roman Empire and China's Han Dynasty — much greater than had been known.
Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions - latimes.com


The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming

The LA Times featured an Op-Ed by IoES Director Glen MacDonald on why it is crucial to continue to pursue scientific data on climate change.
The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming,  UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
But the skeptics keep shifting their arguments, so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com

 

[whitehall]

Blame the Jews? The federal government funds hundreds of (taxpayer) grants to promote the concept of global warming and the Koch brothers become the target for Media Matters bigotry because they throw a couple of bucks to a scientist who doesn't agree with the prevailing viewpoint?

 

[earthmuffin]

I have a hard time taking climate change deniers seriously. Usually, the things they say do nothing except prove they know nothing about how climate change works. And if they aren't spouting false "common sense", they're pushing studies and scientists that are few and far between, and usually have sketchy financial links to oil companies and the like.

Climate change is not a conspiracy. The conspiracy is committed by those profiting from fossil fuel usage who will do absolutely anything to keep people believing that there's plenty of oil, coal and gas for everyone forever, and using it has no detrimental effects.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have a hard time taking climate change deniers seriously. Usually, the things they say do nothing except prove they know nothing about how climate change works. And if they aren't spouting false "common sense", they're pushing studies and scientists that are few and far between, and usually have sketchy financial links to oil companies and the like.

Climate change is not a conspiracy. The conspiracy is committed by those profiting from fossil fuel usage who will do absolutely anything to keep people believing that there's plenty of oil, coal and gas for everyone forever, and using it has no detrimental effects.

Especially when they keep changing tactics.

then there is this gem: Speaking recently on MSNBC, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) underscored what has fueled much of the skepticism aimed at climate science: "I thought it must be true," he said, "until I found out what it cost." It's true that mitigation and adaptation will be costly. But inaction could carry even higher costs. Economists Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton calculated that putting off adaptation and mitigation efforts could cost the United States 1.36% of its gross domestic product by 2025, and 1.84% by 2100.

It must be true until a fiscal conservative finds out what it would cost? If that isn't nuts, nothing is.

 

[earthmuffin]

I have a hard time taking climate change deniers seriously. Usually, the things they say do nothing except prove they know nothing about how climate change works. And if they aren't spouting false "common sense", they're pushing studies and scientists that are few and far between, and usually have sketchy financial links to oil companies and the like.

Climate change is not a conspiracy. The conspiracy is committed by those profiting from fossil fuel usage who will do absolutely anything to keep people believing that there's plenty of oil, coal and gas for everyone forever, and using it has no detrimental effects.

Especially when they keep changing tactics.

then there is this gem: Speaking recently on MSNBC, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) underscored what has fueled much of the skepticism aimed at climate science: "I thought it must be true," he said, "until I found out what it cost." It's true that mitigation and adaptation will be costly. But inaction could carry even higher costs. Economists Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton calculated that putting off adaptation and mitigation efforts could cost the United States 1.36% of its gross domestic product by 2025, and 1.84% by 2100.

It must be true until a fiscal conservative finds out what it would cost? If that isn't nuts, nothing is.

So anything that has a high price tag is indicative of a conspiracy? No wonder so many people see conspiracies everywhere...

 

[konradv]

I have a hard time taking climate change deniers seriously. Usually, the things they say do nothing except prove they know nothing about how climate change works. And if they aren't spouting false "common sense", they're pushing studies and scientists that are few and far between, and usually have sketchy financial links to oil companies and the like.

Climate change is not a conspiracy. The conspiracy is committed by those profiting from fossil fuel usage who will do absolutely anything to keep people believing that there's plenty of oil, coal and gas for everyone forever, and using it has no detrimental effects.

Especially when they keep changing tactics.

then there is this gem: Speaking recently on MSNBC, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) underscored what has fueled much of the skepticism aimed at climate science: "I thought it must be true," he said, "until I found out what it cost." It's true that mitigation and adaptation will be costly. But inaction could carry even higher costs. Economists Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton calculated that putting off adaptation and mitigation efforts could cost the United States 1.36% of its gross domestic product by 2025, and 1.84% by 2100.

It must be true until a fiscal conservative finds out what it would cost? If that isn't nuts, nothing is.

i.e. It's cheaper to buy off a senator to be your flack!

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh I definately believe we should pursue the science on climate change but not with the current highly politicized structure and agenda.. As the mission statement of the IPCC says -- they are chartered to find MAN-MADE contributions to the warming. NOT --- to openly and honestly investigate the climate and ALL forcings and theories..

We've only had sophisticated satellite observations for about 25 years. That's what it takes to study the complexity of atmospheric, solar, and climate science. And you've got to observe over a couple decades from space to even get your scientific bearings on the subject.

So evidentally, most likely we'll find that the man-made contributions have been GROSSLY OVERestimated and the natural causes have been GROSSLY UNDERestimated.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, for thousands of years, the CO2 level has been around 280. But starting with the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere started rising. And as we burned more and more fossil fuels, we saw a more rapid increase in the CO2.

We know from the records of companies how much fossil fuels we are burning, we know how much CO2 that burning puts into the atmosphere.

Far from being overestimated, we know very well the amount that we have put into the atmosphere. You are simply obfuscating.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

 

[flacaltenn]

Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers..it's all overwhelming.

We all know, or should know "The Koch Foundation provided funding to physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, a longtime climate-change skeptic, to disprove the widespread consensus on global warming. Instead, his re-analysis showed the exact same warming trend found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists."

"Since completing his research last year, Muller has been vociferously speaking out on the reality of human-caused climate change, including in testimony before Congress."


Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions
An analysis of Greenland ice core samples indicates significant global methane emissions per capita during the Roman Empire and China's Han Dynasty — much greater than had been known.
Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions - latimes.com


The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming

The LA Times featured an Op-Ed by IoES Director Glen MacDonald on why it is crucial to continue to pursue scientific data on climate change.
The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming,* UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
But the skeptics keep shifting their arguments, so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com

The LA Times piece on methane has me wondering if anyone at the LA Times UNDERSTOOD the concept of the study...

Let's put some numbers to the claims that man was "significantly" contributing to methane emissions back in the first millenium..

TODAY --- 270Mtonnes methane ------------- Natural
330Mtonnes methane ------------ Anthropogenic
(Note 1) Man gets charged with 115Mtonne just from domestic cattle)
(Note 2) Termites contribute 20Mtonne/yr to the "natural")

This yields a +20Mtonne IMBALANCE with natural sinks per year.. And thus that is the amount that forms a reserve of Methane as GHG.

Now the study behind that LA Times article states that man is now contributing 70 times MORE methane/yr. Taking that imprecise statement further -- we would estimate that the anthro contribution circa 200AD might be in the range of 5Mtonne/yr..

If NATURAL emissions stayed the same the TOTAL human contribution to methane back then would only be less than 2%.

Assuming that the population of TERMITES has remained the same -- that would make man-made Methane just 25% of ONE insect specie. But also, you have to wonder about that HUMONGEOUS "charge--off" for cattle that man gets charged with.. With LARGE herds of buffalo roaming the plains and far less wildlife displaced by human development --- my wager is that NATURE needs to pick a BIGGER METHANE bill in 100AD by far. And there is no indication that any NATURAL sources of methane are considerably less now than today (unless you honestly INCREASE ancient natural methane numbers with the larger wild herds and smaller domesticated herds).. So man's contribution to methane back in those days DIDN'T EVEN MATTER to GHG warming (if that exists) because the small imbalance we see today DIDN'T EXIST back in those days -- unless natural emissions were far higher...

Bottom line -- man contributed SQUAT to methane as a GHG warming agent in those early days of civilization.. The AUTHORS know this -- but hang on the "factoid" that they found man contributing 20 to 30% of the PYROGENIC emissions of methane. Meaning man burning stuff on purpose versus nature burning it. I even doubt this little factoid, but IF IT IS TRUE --- that amount (as I showed above) is so trivial as to not matter in the GHG calculations...

STILL -- they felt compelled "TO MARKET" their study, by taking a random jab at Anthropogenic sourcing of methane and IMPLY that some of the earliest warming was indeed again (surprise!!!) the fault of man.. That's how you elevate a vanilla science factoid into the pages of the LA TImes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Simple facts. We started at 280 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Now we have 393 ppm in the atmosphere. A rise from 180 ppm to 280 ppm created the present interglacial period. Now we have increased that amount by over 100 ppm in just 120 years.

For the last 400,000 years the methane levels in the atmosphere have varied from 400 ppb to 800 ppb. Today they are near 1800 ppb. Now it is often stated that methane is 20 to 25 times as effective GHG as CO2. But that number is the average effect over a period of 100 years. Normally, methane oxidizes to CO2 and H2O in about 15 years. The initial effect of Methane is actually between 60 and 100 times as effective as CO2.

Trends in Atmospheric Methane

And then there are the manmade GHGs. Although a very tiny fraction of the overall GHGs, some of them are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

Overall, the net effect is that we are already over the limit of the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2 that many scientists state will lead to inevitable consequences, such as melting of the permafrost and release of the vast amounts of CO2 and CH4 there.

Going to be an interesting ride, folks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Simple facts. We started at 280 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Now we have 393 ppm in the atmosphere. A rise from 180 ppm to 280 ppm created the present interglacial period. Now we have increased that amount by over 100 ppm in just 120 years.

For the last 400,000 years the methane levels in the atmosphere have varied from 400 ppb to 800 ppb. Today they are near 1800 ppb. Now it is often stated that methane is 20 to 25 times as effective GHG as CO2. But that number is the average effect over a period of 100 years. Normally, methane oxidizes to CO2 and H2O in about 15 years. The initial effect of Methane is actually between 60 and 100 times as effective as CO2.

Trends in Atmospheric Methane

And then there are the manmade GHGs. Although a very tiny fraction of the overall GHGs, some of them are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

Overall, the net effect is that we are already over the limit of the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2 that many scientists state will lead to inevitable consequences, such as melting of the permafrost and release of the vast amounts of CO2 and CH4 there.

Going to be an interesting ride, folks.

None of those numbers refutes my simple assertion that the authors of that paper know better than let the press releases go out that way.. This study is about METHANE.. Try to focus OldieRocks.. Man WAS NOT a significant source of methane in 200 AD.. TERMITES probably were...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh I definately believe we should pursue the science on climate change but not with the current highly politicized structure and agenda.. As the mission statement of the IPCC says -- they are chartered to find MAN-MADE contributions to the warming. NOT --- to openly and honestly investigate the climate and ALL forcings and theories..

We've only had sophisticated satellite observations for about 25 years. That's what it takes to study the complexity of atmospheric, solar, and climate science. And you've got to observe over a couple decades from space to even get your scientific bearings on the subject.

So evidentally, most likely we'll find that the man-made contributions have been GROSSLY OVERestimated and the natural causes have been GROSSLY UNDERestimated.

IPCC has it's flaws, but the IPCC is not the only body of scientists contributing to the mainstream beliefs of global warming and climate science/

stop playing the IPCC card all the time

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Speaking recently on MSNBC, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) underscored what has fueled much of the skepticism aimed at climate science: "I thought it must be true," he said, "until I found out what it cost."

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha. what a bunch of sheep!

do you guys ever actually look at the studies that you cite? or do the least amount of investigation?

the original paper made no mention of the Romans or the Han.

Isotope Variations in Atmospheric Methane Over the Last Two Millenia

T. Röckmann1, C. Sapart1, G. Monteil1, M. Prokopiou1, R.V.D. Wal1, P. Sperlich2, J. Kaplan3, K. Krumhardt3, C.V.D. Veen1, S. Houweling1, M. Krol1, T. Blunier2, T. Sowers4 and P. Martinerie5

1Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrech University, Utrecht, Netherlands; 303-497-4988, E-mail: [email protected]
2Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, København DK-2100, Denmark
3Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Route Cantonale, Switzerland
4Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Geosciences, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802
5Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de lEnvironement, University of Grenoble, Grenoble, France

Methane (CH4) is an important greenhouse gas that is emitted from multiple natural and anthropogenic sources. Atmospheric levels of CH4 have varied on various timescales in the past, but in many cases the causes of these variations are not understood. Analysis of the isotopic composition of CH4 preserved in ice cores provides evidence for the environmental drivers of variations in CH4 mixing ratios, because different sources and sinks affect the isotopic composition of CH4 uniquely. We have analyzed (δ13C) of CH4 in air trapped in Greenland ice cores over the last 2 millennia and find that the carbon isotopic composition underwent pronounced centennial-scale variations between 200 BC and 1600 AD without clear corresponding changes in CH4 mixing ratios. The long-term CH4 increase observed over this period is accompanied by a small overall δ13C decrease. Two-box model calculations suggest that the long-term CH4 increase can only be explained by an increase in emissions from biogenic sources. The centennial-scale variations in isotope ratios must be primarily due to changes in biomass burning, which are correlated with both natural climate variability including the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and with changes in human population, land-use and important events in history.

then someone came up with a plan to blame humans

Natural and anthropogenic variations in methane sources during the past two millennia

C. J. Sapart, G. Monteil, M. Prokopiou, R. S. W. van de Wal, J. O. Kaplan, P. Sperlich, K. M. Krumhardt, C. van der Veen, S. Houweling, M. C. Krol, T. Blunier, T. Sowers, P. Martinerie, E. Witrant, D. Dahl-Jensen & T. Röckmann
Nature 490, 85–88 (04 October 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11461

Methane is an important greenhouse gas that is emitted from multiple natural and anthropogenic sources. Atmospheric methane concentrations have varied on a number of timescales in the past, but what has caused these variations is not always well understood1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The different sources and sinks of methane have specific isotopic signatures, and the isotopic composition of methane can therefore help to identify the environmental drivers of variations in atmospheric methane concentrations9. Here we present high-resolution carbon isotope data (δ13C content) for methane from two ice cores from Greenland for the past two millennia. We find that the δ13C content underwent pronounced centennial-scale variations between 100 bc and ad 1600. With the help of two-box model calculations, we show that the centennial-scale variations in isotope ratios can be attributed to changes in pyrogenic and biogenic sources. We find correlations between these source changes and both natural climate variability—such as the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age—and changes in human population and land use, such as the decline of the Roman empire and the Han dynasty, and the population expansion during the medieval period.

poor Rockmann got demoted for not being alarmist enough!

here is the smoking gun correlation between CH4 and warming. lines b and f

as usual, very little evidence in the beginning followed by a huge jumping to conclusions at the end. typical of what passes for climate science.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's the science paper edition --- AND the made for TV movie version.. All in one place..

LMFAO................ If you're not gonna win the Nobel Prize --- might as well enter the fiction category for the Pulitzer...

 

[tjvh]

I have a hard time taking climate change deniers seriously. Usually, the things they say do nothing except prove they know nothing about how climate change works. And if they aren't spouting false "common sense", they're pushing studies and scientists that are few and far between, and usually have sketchy financial links to oil companies and the like.

Climate change is not a conspiracy. The conspiracy is committed by those profiting from fossil fuel usage who will do absolutely anything to keep people believing that there's plenty of oil, coal and gas for everyone forever, and using it has no detrimental effects.

You're right, it's not a conspiracy... Let's stop using Oil, Coal, and Gas and we can all live together in our huts, make neat stuff and jump on our bicycles, ride over to our neighbors hut and sell them our neat stuff. Brilliant.

 

[Dot Com]

Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers..it's all overwhelming.

We all know, or should know "The Koch Foundation provided funding to physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, a longtime climate-change skeptic, to disprove the widespread consensus on global warming. Instead, his re-analysis showed the exact same warming trend found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists."

"Since completing his research last year, Muller has been vociferously speaking out on the reality of human-caused climate change, including in testimony before Congress."


Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions
An analysis of Greenland ice core samples indicates significant global methane emissions per capita during the Roman Empire and China's Han Dynasty — much greater than had been known.
Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions - latimes.com


The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming

The LA Times featured an Op-Ed by IoES Director Glen MacDonald on why it is crucial to continue to pursue scientific data on climate change.
The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming,* UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
But the skeptics keep shifting their arguments, so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com

what do the deniers hope to accomplish by keeping their charade going?

 

[skookerasbil]

Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers..it's all overwhelming.

We all know, or should know "The Koch Foundation provided funding to physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, a longtime climate-change skeptic, to disprove the widespread consensus on global warming. Instead, his re-analysis showed the exact same warming trend found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists."

"Since completing his research last year, Muller has been vociferously speaking out on the reality of human-caused climate change, including in testimony before Congress."


Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions
An analysis of Greenland ice core samples indicates significant global methane emissions per capita during the Roman Empire and China's Han Dynasty — much greater than had been known.
Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions - latimes.com


The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming

The LA Times featured an Op-Ed by IoES Director Glen MacDonald on why it is crucial to continue to pursue scientific data on climate change.
The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming,* UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
But the skeptics keep shifting their arguments, so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com

Nobody cares about the science anymore s0n...........but perhaps you can display for me otherwise.


Links please......................


Good luck

 

[flacaltenn]

Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers..it's all overwhelming.

We all know, or should know "The Koch Foundation provided funding to physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, a longtime climate-change skeptic, to disprove the widespread consensus on global warming. Instead, his re-analysis showed the exact same warming trend found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists."

"Since completing his research last year, Muller has been vociferously speaking out on the reality of human-caused climate change, including in testimony before Congress."


Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions
An analysis of Greenland ice core samples indicates significant global methane emissions per capita during the Roman Empire and China's Han Dynasty — much greater than had been known.
Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions - latimes.com


The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming

The LA Times featured an Op-Ed by IoES Director Glen MacDonald on why it is crucial to continue to pursue scientific data on climate change.
The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming,* UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
But the skeptics keep shifting their arguments, so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com

what do the deniers hope to accomplish by keeping their charade going?

As long as we are entertained by the moronic pseudoscience that's created just to inflame the "believers" of your cult..

Here we have a fine example of that. What with those "ancient greenhouse gas emissions" links and no discussion of the MEANING or demonstrated understanding of any of that.. (if any)............. How long have you been scientifically abused? As a child?

Don't you want to discuss what a 2% anthropomorphic contribution of methane MEANS to the climate in 200AD?? Or you just want to make a quick political score???

 

[Dot Com]

deniers. GET A BRAIN MORANS!!!