Even the Warmists Don't Believe In Global Warming

[Conservative]

Even the Warmists Don't Believe In Global Warming - Forbes

But what of the Progressives’ argument that, because the effects of climate change are potentially so disastrous, we should surrender our freedom and move to a centrally planned world economy managed by experts, “just in case”?

Two points about this: first, it’s not going to happen. The Progressives will have to content themselves with extracting a few billion dollars per year from taxpayers to fund cushy “research” and “advocacy” jobs, and to hold climate change conferences like the one that just concluded in Durban. Second, the climate change advocates obviously don’t believe in climate change themselves.

You can’t necessarily tell what people are truly committed to from what they say. However, you can always tell what they are truly committed to by how they negotiate. If someone really wants to do something, they will react to a suggestion by engaging it. They will “work with” the suggestion, trying to see how it can help them do what they say they want to do. If someone says that they want to do something but they really have some other agenda, they will respond to a suggestion with an instant, “Yes, but…”

The climate change crowd has been frantically “yes, butting” geoengineering, which involves using technology to control the climate directly. Their efforts in this regard would be hilarious if the stakes in terms of money and freedom were not so high.

Climate change proponents recently mounted a desperate effort to stop an experiment in Britain designed to spray 40 gallons of pure water into the upper atmosphere (the so-called SPICE project). Thus far, they have managed to delay the test, and they are arguing that even if the experiment goes ahead, the results should not be made public.

The Progressives are well aware that their opposition to geoengineering experiments exposes their entire game, which is all about money, power, and central-planning control of people’s lives, and has nothing to do with concern about the earth. Unfortunately (for them), they have no choice. Geoengineering solutions might actually work, but they do not require that Progressives be given taxpayer money to hold lavish conferences in lovely places like Durban, South Africa.

Al Gore can suck it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Geo-engineering involve major unforseen consequences. But the rest of the article is pure shit.

Home

 

[konradv]

But what of the Progressives’ argument that, because the effects of climate change are potentially so disastrous, we should surrender our freedom and move to a centrally planned world economy managed by experts, “just in case”?

Someone speaking for someone else..., AGAIN!!! Either attach that quote to a specific person or persons or STFU. Why should we accept conservatives telling us, "I've got mine, to hell with the rest of you"? Why would we want to accept such a patently unChristian philosophy?!?!

 

[Conservative]

Geo-engineering involve major unforseen consequences. But the rest of the article is pure shit.

Home

such as?????

 

[Old Rocks]

Geo-engineering involve major unforseen consequences. But the rest of the article is pure shit.

Home

such as?????

Now if we knew for sure, they would not be unforeseen, now, would they.

Aswan Dam is a prime example of unforeseen consequences. And the effects of many of the suggestions would be world wide, and not easily remedied.

However, having said this, were you to read what the scientists reactions to the massive methane outgassing in the Arctic last fall, you would see that they are actively considering geo-engineering, contrary to that shit article.

I really find it disturbing that people actually write this kind of nonsense without the slightest research as to what the scientists are actually doing.

 

[Conservative]

Geo-engineering involve major unforseen consequences. But the rest of the article is pure shit.

Home

such as?????

Now if we knew for sure, they would not be unforeseen, now, would they.

Aswan Dam is a prime example of unforeseen consequences. And the effects of many of the suggestions would be world wide, and not easily remedied.

However, having said this, were you to read what the scientists reactions to the massive methane outgassing in the Arctic last fall, you would see that they are actively considering geo-engineering, contrary to that shit article.

I really find it disturbing that people actually write this kind of nonsense without the slightest research as to what the scientists are actually doing.

you claim geo-engineering involves 'major unforeseen consequences'.

you then go on to say 'Now if we knew for sure, they would not be unforeseen, now, would they'.

You're telling me there are major consequences, but you don't know what they are.

HOW then, do you know they are 'major'?

 

[skookerasbil]

The progressives best get used to lots and lots of fracking and clean coal in the coming years..........its happening s0ns. Best buckle up your chinstraps and hope for the next green techonology because green energy stuff is going to get its trickle her and trickle there.........nothing more......at least for a decade. Only the hopelessly duped think its anything more than a fad.

 

[konradv]

Is there really even a question of 'if'? The logical topics of discussion are 'when' and 'how bad'. Just thought I'd clear things up so we can all start a new year with the proper perspective.


HAPPY NEW YEAR

 

[skookerasbil]

CONSERVATIVE...........I just read the article. Brilliant and so spot on.

Ive been saying it for two solid years now.,.......the alarmist contingent is upstream wihtout a paddle. Their cause is so hopeless at this point.......the past two years, the escalator down has been at a rate that is amazing even to me.

 

[westwall]

Geo-engineering involve major unforseen consequences. But the rest of the article is pure shit.

Home

Methane plumes are a result of sea water intrusion THOUSANDS OF YEARS ago. And will naturally go away in a few more thousand years. Mother Earth works sloooooooowly.

Though not as slow as olfraud!

 

[Old Rocks]

Now why do I find the people doing the real research in the Arctic so much more convincing that an internet poster?

And you simply are a liar, or completely unaware of the history of the amount of methane in the atmosphere for the last 600 thousand years.

At no time has it been above 800 ppb until now. Now it is over 1800 ppb. In the short term, 20 years, that is the equivelent to and additional 80+ ppm of CO2.

The Threat of Methane Release from Permafrost and Clathrates – Feebates

 

[westwall]

Now why do I find the people doing the real research in the Arctic so much more convincing that an internet poster?

And you simply are a liar, or completely unaware of the history of the amount of methane in the atmosphere for the last 600 thousand years.

At no time has it been above 800 ppb until now. Now it is over 1800 ppb. In the short term, 20 years, that is the equivelent to and additional 80+ ppm of CO2.

The Threat of Methane Release from Permafrost and Clathrates – Feebates

Here is the quote from the two scientists who made the discovery that the rest of the cult has glommed onto. I think these two guys know more in their pinky, about what they reported on, then the collected "experts" in your entire methane catastrophe circle jerk. And below that is the study from the AGU and the link to that as well. So yes, I will certainly listen to them over a blowhard fraud like you.



"We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.

In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.

We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 49, PAGE 464, 2011
doi:10.1029/2011EO490014

RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming



Colin Schultz

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA


"Eight thousand years ago, a rising sea inundated the vast permafrost regions off the northern coast of Siberia. Comprising the modern east Siberian shelf, the region holds enormous quantities of methane hydrates bottled up in remnant subterranean permafrost zones that are, in turn, trapped beneath the ocean waters. Records of seafloor water temperature showing a 2.1°C rise since 1985, coupled with recent observations of methane emissions from the seabed, have led some scientists to speculate that the rising temperatures have thawed some of the subsurface permafrost, liberating the trapped methane. The connection is compelling, but an investigation by Dmitrenko et al. into the sensitivity of permafrost to rising temperatures suggests the two observations are not connected. Using a permafrost model forced with paleoclimate data to analyze changes in the depth of frozen bottom sediments, the authors found that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed in the past 25 years, adding to the 25 meters of already thawed soil. Forecasting the expected future permafrost thaw, the authors found that even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested this thawed soil growth will not exceed 10 meters by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium. The authors note that the bulk of the methane stores in the east Siberian shelf are trapped roughly 200 meters below the seafloor, indicating that the recent methane emissions observations were likely not connected to the modest modern permafrost thaw. Instead, they suggest that the current methane emissions are the result of the permafrost's still adjusting to its new aquatic conditions, even after 8000 years. (Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, doi:10.1029/2011JC007218, 2011)"



Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

 

[daveman]

Geo-engineering involve major unforseen consequences.

So does extorting trillions of dollars from Western economies. But you think that's a swell idea.

 

[daveman]

Geo-engineering involve major unforseen consequences. But the rest of the article is pure shit.

Home

such as?????

Such as proving AGW wrong, mostly.

 

[daveman]

Is there really even a question of 'if'? The logical topics of discussion are 'when' and 'how bad'. Just thought I'd clear things up so we can all start a new year with the proper perspective.


HAPPY NEW YEAR

SO you want to silence debate and squash dissent.

Typical leftist.

 

[daveman]

Now why do I find the people doing the real research in the Arctic so much more convincing that an internet poster?

And you simply are a liar, or completely unaware of the history of the amount of methane in the atmosphere for the last 600 thousand years.

At no time has it been above 800 ppb until now. Now it is over 1800 ppb. In the short term, 20 years, that is the equivelent to and additional 80+ ppm of CO2.

The Threat of Methane Release from Permafrost and Clathrates – Feebates

Here is the quote from the two scientists who made the discovery that the rest of the cult has glommed onto. I think these two guys know more in their pinky, about what they reported on, the then collected "experts" in your entire methane catastrophe circle jerk. And below that is the study from the AGU and the link to that as well. So yes, I will certainly listen to them over a blowhard fraud like you.



"We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.

In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.

We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 49, PAGE 464, 2011
doi:10.1029/2011EO490014

RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT

Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming



Colin Schultz

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA


"Eight thousand years ago, a rising sea inundated the vast permafrost regions off the northern coast of Siberia. Comprising the modern east Siberian shelf, the region holds enormous quantities of methane hydrates bottled up in remnant subterranean permafrost zones that are, in turn, trapped beneath the ocean waters. Records of seafloor water temperature showing a 2.1°C rise since 1985, coupled with recent observations of methane emissions from the seabed, have led some scientists to speculate that the rising temperatures have thawed some of the subsurface permafrost, liberating the trapped methane. The connection is compelling, but an investigation by Dmitrenko et al. into the sensitivity of permafrost to rising temperatures suggests the two observations are not connected. Using a permafrost model forced with paleoclimate data to analyze changes in the depth of frozen bottom sediments, the authors found that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed in the past 25 years, adding to the 25 meters of already thawed soil. Forecasting the expected future permafrost thaw, the authors found that even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested this thawed soil growth will not exceed 10 meters by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium. The authors note that the bulk of the methane stores in the east Siberian shelf are trapped roughly 200 meters below the seafloor, indicating that the recent methane emissions observations were likely not connected to the modest modern permafrost thaw. Instead, they suggest that the current methane emissions are the result of the permafrost's still adjusting to its new aquatic conditions, even after 8000 years. (Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, doi:10.1029/2011JC007218, 2011)"



Siberian shelf methane emissions not tied to modern warming

Yo, Roxy: Now why do I find the people doing the real research in the Arctic so much more convincing that an internet poster?



Let me guess: Colin Schultz is a tool of BIGOIL.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting the Dr. Schulz would think that. Especially to those of us that have followed Dr. Semiletov's research into the clathrates since 2003. At that time, elevated CH4 in solution in the water, a bit higher than normal amounts in the air above the water. No plumes, and no methane being directly injected into the atmosphere. By 2010, near saturation points for CH4 in the water, plumes with bubbles of CH4 breaking surface tens of meters across. The air above the ocean containing over 100 times the normal amount of CH4.

Now this year Dr. Semiletov and his team of American and Russian scientists observe in an area of only 100 by 100 miles over 100 plumes, many of which were over a kilometer in diameter, injecting methane directly into the atmosphere. And, by satellites observation of the methane over the Arctic Ocean on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, there were likely thousands of these plumes.

The same team has measured an increase in temperatures of the water in the area of as much as 3 C. Yet Dr. Schultz states this has nothing to do with the outgassing witnessed this year?

 

[Old Rocks]

Science stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting | ThinkProgress

But the situation in the ESAS is far, far more dicey, as NSF explains:

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, in addition to holding large stores of frozen methane, is more of a concern because it is so shallow. In deep water, methane gas oxidizes into carbon dioxide before it reaches the surface. In the shallows of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, methane simply doesn’t have enough time to oxidize, which means more of it escapes into the atmosphere. That, combined with the sheer amount of methane in the region, could add a previously uncalculated variable to climate models.

“The release to the atmosphere of only one percent of the methane assumed to be stored in shallow hydrate deposits might alter the current atmospheric burden of methane up to 3 to 4 times,” Shakhova said. “The climatic consequences of this are hard to predict.”

And we also know that a key trigger for accelerated warming in the Arctic region is the loss of sea ice.

A 2008 study by leading tundra experts found “Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss.” The lead author is David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), whom I interviewed for my book and interviewed again via e-mail in 2008. The study’s ominous conclusion:

We find that simulated western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends. The accelerated warming signal penetrates up to 1500 km inland”¦.

 

[skookerasbil]

Some warmer patterns across much of the US has the warmer contingent frothing at the mouth..........but according to Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute,

"The decreasing frequency of cold snaps should not lead anyone to conclude that there is dramatic warming across the globe" and he went on tho say, "Climate change is happening, he said, but not at the “magnitude” that some suggest...........Temperature anomalies happen for many reasons"


Mild weather redefines winter landscape - The Washington Post

 

[code1211]

Is there really even a question of 'if'? The logical topics of discussion are 'when' and 'how bad'. Just thought I'd clear things up so we can all start a new year with the proper perspective.


HAPPY NEW YEAR

Address the "why".