Humble Clumps of Moss Yield Sobering Climate Surprises

[westwall]

I disagree. I believe he knows, with great certainty, that the dated age of those samples is the last time they were exposed to air. I really think a sample that has been encased in snow and ice continuously for a thousand years and one that was thawed out in the middle of that time span for, what, a week? A year? A few years? I think they could be told apart very easily and with complete certainty.

Besides, do you have some OTHER paleoclimatological record that indicates Baffin Island has experienced a warm period during that span? And, please, we've heard enough about the MWP.

How about the Holocene Thermal Maximum then...WAY AFTER 40,000 years ago...

This contrasts with many sites on Iceland and across the Arctic that experienced an early to mid-Holocene "thermal maximum" in response to enhanced summer insolation forcing. Suppressed terrestrial temperatures along the northern coastal fringe of Iceland were most likely a result of sea surface conditions on the North Iceland shelf. In contrast, peak warmth on northeastern Baffin Island occurred during the first millennia of the Holocene, roughly in phase with peak insolation forcing. The magnitude of early Holocene warmth at Lake CF8 (5ºC warmer than present) far exceeds hemispheric averages, and implies that powerful positive feedbacks enhanced radiative forcing in this region. Early Holocene warmth was interrupted by two cold reversals between 9.5 and 8 ka, which may correlate with the well-known "8.2 event" and widespread abrupt climate changes that occurred ca. 9.2 ka. Maximum last-interglacial temperatures at Lake CF8 were not significantly different from peak Holocene temperatures.


http://udini.proquest.com/view/interglacial-temperature-goid:304887730/

Exposure history modeling indicates at least one additional prior period of ice cover of approximately 1000 years. This cold interval most likely occurred sometime since 4 ka, after the Holocene Thermal Maximum in the Arctic and coeval with the onset of Neoglaciation. Radiocarbon dating reveals that some plateau ice caps have been continuously present for more than 1000 years, whereas others formed early in the Little Ice Age (~520 cal BP). Even without additional warming, continuation of current climatic conditions on northern Baffin Island will result in the demise of all ice on the plateau, a condition that has not occurred for more than 1300 years.


Rapidly Melting Ice Caps of Northern Baffin Island: Insights From Cosmogenic and

Although the retreat chronology of the LIS during the late Pleistocene (21–11.5 ka BP) is relatively well constrained by hundreds of 14C dates and extensive moraines that document the age and position of the retreating ice margin, its subsequent Holocene retreat history remains poorly known with the exception of the Baffin Island/Foxe Basin region
(Fig. 1) (Dyke 2004; Miller et al. 2005).

http://www.geo.oregonstate.edu/files/geo/Carlson-2007-JClimate.pdf

 

[orogenicman]

I have no idea what the args are from the Creationists. I quoted actual science fact.

Point is --- the author and his "teacher friend" are LEAPING to conclusions not in evidence.
Don't care if I win.. But BOTH OF them lose with their attempt to turn shoddy science into yet more Global Warming propaganda..

Their assertions and conclusions are motivated by DESIRE, not science. Can you say the same about those Young Whosits Creationists? Can I get an Amen from ya bro !!!!!

The fact is that radio isotopic dating methods are valid and are used by hundreds of labs worldwide with great success. Now, I know you want these results to be wrong, but unless you have ACTUAL evidence that they aren't, then all you are doing is beating a dead horse.

The radiodating won't TELL YOU when or how many times these remnants were exposed in the past. And moss that APPEARS dead for HUNDREDS of years can regenerate many times. Making the carbon dating process nothing more than a poor approximation of when these plants STARTED life.

You falsely accuse me of denying a valid tool of science. I'm just telling you the tools in the HEADS of these authors are defective.. I posted a section on "mixed date" samples. Did you understand the implications?

Will you miss the same points next time you decide to attack me?

You'll have to explain how stating the facts is "attacking you". Like I said, "unless you have ACTUAL evidence that they (the specific dates in the paper in question) aren't, then all you are doing is beating a dead horse".

 

[westwall]

Try looking at the post immediately above yours. That's three papers that state the temps were greater during the HTM.

 

[orogenicman]

Try looking at the post immediately above yours. That's three papers that state the temps were greater during the HTM.

How do those papers refute the radiocarbon dates in the OP?

 

[polarbear]

I disagree. I believe he knows, with great certainty, that the dated age of those samples is the last time they were exposed to air. I really think a sample that has been encased in snow and ice continuously for a thousand years and one that was thawed out in the middle of that time span for, what, a week? A year? A few years? I think they could be told apart very easily and with complete certainty.

Besides, do you have some OTHER paleoclimatological record that indicates Baffin Island has experienced a warm period during that span? And, please, we've heard enough about the MWP.

You assume that organic material buried in sand instead of snow or ice will rot in the high arctic. ...but they don`t.
You can leave a piece of meat out in the open for as long as you want to..it won`t rot and be there for your great grandchildren unless the wolves find it.
When I showed you pictures of the "Thule rings" I mentioned that, but it goes right by people like you and you can`t connect the dots.

The only dots you guys "connect" are the ones that yield the pattern you want to see.

Anyway back to the Thule rings and why organic matter does not rot up in the arctic as they do where you live.

These rings were food stores that the Eskimos used. They placed those in a string under rock piles and the distance between them was a day`s travel.
The other thing that you don`t know is how cold the sand is just a few inches below the surface up there.
On some sunny mid-summer days you can walk around in a T-shirt in the high arctic and don`t need gloves either.
But if you dig bare handed in the sand you freeze your fingers off as soon as you get just a few inches below the surface.
Go up there and try it !
Last not least moss is acid enough to prevent it from rotting.
It`s one of the few plants that thrives in acid soil at ~ pH 5
So of course it`s acid and remains so....like a herring pickled in vinegar. It won`t rot !
I`m pretty sure the zealot who wants to resurrect the hockey stick knew all that but decided not to mention that else his "deduction" that the moss must have been encased in ice for the last 44 000 years till very recent is out the window.
Every one of you AGW zealots should take a Rorschach (what do you see) test....and I bet every one of you would see a demon in every ink blot.
None of you seems to be able to observe objectively.
"Suggestive selling" works best with gullible people just like you who fall for every con ....and this moss crap theory is a picture perfect example of suggestive journalism. It would not even survive one of these staged IPCC yes-men "peer reviews" that allowed other gross errors to pass through.
It took a personal friend of the moss "arctic amplification" theorist to publish it in blog format, laced with glee and sensationalism in order to get attention the same way forum trolls do it.
It`s a propaganda piece custom tailored for alarmists just like you that scour the internet 24/7 for doomsday "proof" hoping it goes viral if enough people quote it so that it becomes more "Google visible".
The only reason why I decided to respond is because the likes of alarmist posters like you don`t know the difference and delude yourself that no response is some sort of proof that there is no proof to the contrary.

 

[flacaltenn]

This "study" has some severe cred problems as already noted... But here's another example of "amplification" in the work..

From the OP..

Ice caps are actually disappearing all across Baffin Island. In the past 20 years “the warming signal from that region has been just stunning,” Miller says (quoted in a press release from the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, where he is a fellow.). “All of Baffin Island is melting, and we expect all of the ice caps to eventually disappear, even if there is no additional warming.”

Only a weeeeeee bit of exaggeration there..
STUNNING?? Only if you're already braindead I suppose..

This is why I don't do ice.. Because it's NOT an indicator of warming.. It reaches certain thresholds and things CONTINUE to melt.
It is a NON-LINEAR indicator..

 

[Abraham3]

Can't handle phase changes? I used to love 'em in thermo. So definitive. Parameters dropping out like flies.

And, considering how long and hard you argued for nonlinear forcing-response functions, this is a rater astounding admission.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't handle phase changes? I used to love 'em in thermo. So definitive. Parameters dropping out like flies.

And, considering how long and hard you argued for nonlinear forcing-response functions, this is a rater astounding admission.

ICE is not a "forcing function" (except for albedo changes). It's used as an indicator. It's misinterpreted as a proxy for surface temp or "warming".. As the temperature chart on Baffin Island shows --- those ice mounds were DOOMED WELL BEFORE the CO2 concentrations started to matter. Another nail in the crappy absence of logic study.. Likely NOT to be a anthro cause for those mounds to melt..

But the main flaws in this turd remain.. Those moss remains were NOT JUST RECENTLY uncovered by ice.. That's just guessing and conjecture. ANYONE can do that. The RadioDating doesn't say that. All it says is that material has been there A LONG LONG TIME.. If it stopped and started growing again --- the dating would just be skewed by the percentages of the material and the "cover time" of the ice. Considering the dating puts it back BEFORE the end of an Ice Age -- most of post glacial growth would be minimal. If it died and was covered and uncovered 10 times, the dating would not show it.

It's sloppy logic and work..

 

[mamooth]

You assume that organic material buried in sand instead of snow or ice will rot in the high arctic. ...but they don`t.

All you're showing us is that buried frozen organic matter doesn't decay, which isn't the issue. The plants tested were on the surface. The whole article is behind a paywall, so I can't get to it, but the abstract notes it used rooted plants. That is, nearly intact plants on the surface. Wet unfrozen organic matter on the surface does decay. That's how the soil forms. If the posited intermissions had happened, those dead plants would have decayed and vanished.

Acidity is a red herring. They weren't using acidic sphagnum moss from the muskeg zone, since Baffin is way north of that, in the tundra zone. Tundra doesn't form muskeg or peat bogs. Dead plant matter in tundra conditions actually decays faster if the soil is more acidic.

Litter decomposition in moist acidic and non-acidi... [Oecologia. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Abraham3]

Those moss remains were NOT JUST RECENTLY uncovered by ice.. That's just guessing and conjecture. ANYONE can do that.

You make a statement as if it were a hard established fact. Then you sort of admit it was a guess. I'm afraid that compared with the author of this study, you don't know what you're talking about.

the dating would just be skewed by the percentages of the material and the "cover time" of the ice. Considering the dating puts it back BEFORE the end of an Ice Age -- most of post glacial growth would be minimal. If it died and was covered and uncovered 10 times, the dating would not show it.

If it was uncovered and came back to life, it would have incorported fresh C14 and the dates would have come out shorter - less old - than they did. All you're telling us is that it could be even further back since they were last uncovered.

 

[orogenicman]

I disagree. I believe he knows, with great certainty, that the dated age of those samples is the last time they were exposed to air. I really think a sample that has been encased in snow and ice continuously for a thousand years and one that was thawed out in the middle of that time span for, what, a week? A year? A few years? I think they could be told apart very easily and with complete certainty.

Besides, do you have some OTHER paleoclimatological record that indicates Baffin Island has experienced a warm period during that span? And, please, we've heard enough about the MWP.

You assume that organic material buried in sand instead of snow or ice will rot in the high arctic. ...but they don`t.
You can leave a piece of meat out in the open for as long as you want to..it won`t rot and be there for your great grandchildren unless the wolves find it.
When I showed you pictures of the "Thule rings" I mentioned that, but it goes right by people like you and you can`t connect the dots.

The only dots you guys "connect" are the ones that yield the pattern you want to see.

Anyway back to the Thule rings and why organic matter does not rot up in the arctic as they do where you live.

These rings were food stores that the Eskimos used. They placed those in a string under rock piles and the distance between them was a day`s travel.
The other thing that you don`t know is how cold the sand is just a few inches below the surface up there.
On some sunny mid-summer days you can walk around in a T-shirt in the high arctic and don`t need gloves either.
But if you dig bare handed in the sand you freeze your fingers off as soon as you get just a few inches below the surface.
Go up there and try it !
Last not least moss is acid enough to prevent it from rotting.
It`s one of the few plants that thrives in acid soil at ~ pH 5
So of course it`s acid and remains so....like a herring pickled in vinegar. It won`t rot !
I`m pretty sure the zealot who wants to resurrect the hockey stick knew all that but decided not to mention that else his "deduction" that the moss must have been encased in ice for the last 44 000 years till very recent is out the window.
Every one of you AGW zealots should take a Rorschach (what do you see) test....and I bet every one of you would see a demon in every ink blot.
None of you seems to be able to observe objectively.
"Suggestive selling" works best with gullible people just like you who fall for every con ....and this moss crap theory is a picture perfect example of suggestive journalism. It would not even survive one of these staged IPCC yes-men "peer reviews" that allowed other gross errors to pass through.
It took a personal friend of the moss "arctic amplification" theorist to publish it in blog format, laced with glee and sensationalism in order to get attention the same way forum trolls do it.
It`s a propaganda piece custom tailored for alarmists just like you that scour the internet 24/7 for doomsday "proof" hoping it goes viral if enough people quote it so that it becomes more "Google visible".
The only reason why I decided to respond is because the likes of alarmist posters like you don`t know the difference and delude yourself that no response is some sort of proof that there is no proof to the contrary.

Sandy soil is acidic, and doesn't preserve organic material very well for long periods of time. This is a well known fact in archaeological circles. While it is true that in some cases, such organic material has been found, it has almost always been associated with carbonized material such as human-built hearths where the pH is higher. In the arctic, particularly in places such as Siberia, organic remains have been found, such as Mammoth remains. But in many of those cases, the soil was either of neutral pH, slightly alkaline, or the remains were found frozen in place very quickly after death.

 

[polarbear]

You assume that organic material buried in sand instead of snow or ice will rot in the high arctic. ...but they don`t.

All you're showing us is that buried frozen organic matter doesn't decay, which isn't the issue. The plants tested were on the surface. The whole article is behind a paywall, so I can't get to it, but the abstract notes it used rooted plants. That is, nearly intact plants on the surface. Wet unfrozen organic matter on the surface does decay. That's how the soil forms. If the posited intermissions had happened, those dead plants would have decayed and vanished.

Acidity is a red herring. They weren't using acidic sphagnum moss from the muskeg zone, since Baffin is way north of that, in the tundra zone. Tundra doesn't form muskeg or peat bogs. Dead plant matter in tundra conditions actually decays faster if the soil is more acidic.

Litter decomposition in moist acidic and non-acidi... [Oecologia. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

How does that experiment relate to moss on Baffin Island?
I`m pretty sure they did not have to wait for as long as that 44 000 year old Baffin Island moss was out from under the ice...which is supposed to be from the onset when we started burning fossil fuel...right ?
Furthermore you should tell the FDA that their (pH) guidelines for food preservation when moisture is present is all wrong.
I`m sure that "litter decomposition" experiment in the Brooks Mountain range foothills took no longer than it takes to make compost way down south..
Why not ?
Read on what else they said:
Litter decomposition in moist acidic and non-acidi... [Oecologia. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

...it was nearly twice as fast at the older, moistacidic tundra site because most substrates decayed faster at that site, indicating a more favorable environment for decomposition in acidic tundra. Site differences in soil moisture and temperature could not explain site differences in decomposition. However, higher soil N availability at the moist acidic tundra may have contributed to faster decomposition since, in a separate experiment, fertilization with N stimulated decomposition of a common substrate at both sites

And that`s how and why stuff can rot where they did that experiment.
You`ve got lots of moisture, Nitrogen and all kinds of fungi in the Brooks foothill forests, else trees can`t grow there.
There are no trees growing on Baffin where that moss did not rot, the sand is bone dry, ice cold and has next to no Nitrogen content
How come none of these tree stumps I keep showing you have any fungus on it & don`t decompose?
Not even a fish or a piece of meat out in the open spoils.
According to the "moss evidence" which supposedly proves "man made arctic amplification"they should rot just as fast as any other dead tree (or moss) does in the Brooks Range foothill forest
So tell me again...
When did that Baffin Island moss which did not rot loose it`s ice cover and surface?
Just last year ? That is in fact the claim by inference without putting it in words. The usual AGW insurance policy,...don`t be specific, cover your ass with vague statements that can be adjusted later to whatever as you please.
It also implies that there is no Baffin Island moss or other plants to be found that has been "dead" for less than 44 000 years.
Again, I wonder what the Muskox ate on Baffin Island for the last 1000 years.
Its easier to nail pudding against the wall than these AGW "studies" which are about as specific as fortune cookies.
I don`t really expect an answer but feel free to try again, & better luck next time !
Before you try again reconcile that with your latest pet theory:
http://www.livescience.com/38983-irish-bog-body.html

Oldest 'Bog Body' Found with Skin Intact

Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of a 4,000-year-old man preserved in an Irish peat bog, marking the oldest European bog body ever found with skin still intact.
The cool, waterlogged conditions of Northern European bogs (a type of wetland) create low-oxygen, highly acidic environments ideal for body preservation. As a result, hundreds of "bog bodies" dating back thousands of years have been uncovered in the region, but many have shriveled down to mostly skeletons and tend to be closer to 2,000 years old.

 

[mamooth]

There are no trees growing on Baffin where that moss did not rot, the sand is bone dry, ice cold and has next to no Nitrogen content

If there's water and above-freezing conditions, things will rot. Bacteria are everywhere.

How come none of these tree stumps I keep showing you have any fungus on it & don`t decompose?

Fungus is not necessary for decay. And those stumps did start decomposing. They're obviously very rotted. But they're solid wood, so the decay is much slower than for soft moss.

You're all reaching, invoking a magic theory about how the tundra is so special, things never rot. The absence of a 100-foot-thick carpet of dead unrotted moss shows the flaw in that strange claim.

 

[polarbear]

There are no trees growing on Baffin where that moss did not rot, the sand is bone dry, ice cold and has next to no Nitrogen content

If there's water and above-freezing conditions, things will rot. Bacteria are everywhere.

How come none of these tree stumps I keep showing you have any fungus on it & don`t decompose?

Fungus is not necessary for decay. And those stumps did start decomposing. They're obviously very rotted. But they're solid wood, so the decay is much slower than for soft moss.

You're all reaching, invoking a magic theory about how the tundra is so special, things never rot. The absence of a 100-foot-thick carpet of dead unrotted moss shows the flaw in that strange claim.

It`s you who is reaching. First you latched onto the acidity.
That did not get you anywhere
Now it`s "there is bacteria everywhere"and claim that even the tree stumps I showed you are "rotten".
1.) Name a bacteria that`s supposed to rot wood in the high arctic.
2.) I got some pictures n one of my CD`s where we sawed one of the stumps.
It was all solid wood to the core and bone dry.
3.) Now tell me why you can leave fish and meat out in the open all summer long and it does not spoil... Not even for years !
If there were every kind of bacteria up there that are common south of the arctic most of the animals & indigenous people up there would have died off because they never developed the same immunity as both have south of there.
Matter of fact Canada established wild life land-corridors from east to west where the Yukon & Nunavut border is to keep common southern diseases from invading the arctic.
The bacteria that can survive up there is mostly confined to aquatic environments and stays dormant in a dry environment.
Again, even if there were some sort of bacteria that would rapidly rot exposed moss did your arctic moss expert even bother to test how long it would take for your "moss rotting bacteria" to decompose one of these samples he collected?
Of course not !
That`s the only way it could be proven that this moss was under the ice and has been exposed for a shorter time than your miracle bacteria can decompose moss which is not covered by a layer of ice.
He would also have to show, that all the other "dead" moss samples that can be found at a greater distance from the current ice cover are either just as old or had partially decomposed.
Did he bother to examine any other moss samples which can be found at a larger distance from the ice edge ?
He does not say !
When things do decompose they don`t just go "poof" and vanish without a trace, especially not if they are covered under a layer of ice cold & dry sand.
It`s not up to skeptics to go up there and collect more moss samples, but I`m sure they would not hesitate to do so if that crack-pot moss theory would get some traction in the rest of the scientific community.
So far it`s only a few forum folks like you, that fill in the gaps of this moss-theory with your own assumptions.
Debunk one then up comes another one...now it`s "bacteria exists everywhere" , but for some strange reason only some kind of moss eating bacteria and none of the other myriad of species exist that would rot animal tissue..else Eskimos would buy refrigerators.

Well in Iqaluit they have some at their Mc Donald`s but I`m pretty sure the rest of the Inuit that used to live on Ellesmere for thousands of year had none. Never found one in and around Perry`s shack @ Fort Conger either. But they wrote in their journals how great the duck hunting was there. Maybe in addition to your instant moss eating bacteria you could also tell me about some sort of duck species that prefers to live & breed on solid ice?
Funny that everywhere else it`s a fungus that decomposes moss and not bacteria. And whatever bacteria can decompose moss also can do so in an anaerobic environment...it`s not confined to an open air environment.
Matter of fact the extremely intense UV radiation up in the arctic would kill off that kind of bacteria in no time.
Consider how much more UV makes it through up there under the "Ozone hole" and with 24/7 daylight under an intense sun!
There are not many bacteria species that can survive intense UV radiation during the summer and then a brutally cold winter.
They must be using sun screen lotion during the summer and grow fur during the winter.
Comprendre ?
Okay. So far we have dealt with the fungus, the pH and now with some sort of super bacteria that only exists on Baffin Island and waits for moss to appear from under the ice.
And :

The absence of a 100-foot-thick carpet of dead unrotted moss shows the flaw in that strange claim.

All that the absence of a 100 foot thick moss shows is that the climate and sparse moisture never could support one of your 100 foot thick vegetation layers!
You have some very strange phantasies what it`s like on Baffin Island and along the edges of the current ice cover
So what`s next?
The only thing that`s left is "the rabbits up there like to eat dead but freshly exposed moss"...or similar brilliant "reasoning".
How come you can`t wrap your head around that the only thing that moss sample proves is that it was warm enough 44 000 years ago for moss to grow at the location where it was found.
In no way does that indicate how long ago it was exposed or how long it was covered under the sand up there.
They got sand storms up there during the summer that rival Sahara desert sand storms and when a Herc lands or takes off you can`t breathe anywhere along the runway unless you wear a dust mask !
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo08wXYv1jM"]C130 landing at CFS Alert - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Abraham3]

Where does all that methane come from?

ps: will you be getting back to Matthew's thread? To apologize to him perhaps?

 

[westwall]

Where does all that methane come from?

ps: will you be getting back to Matthew's thread? To apologize to him perhaps?

I don't know. Where does the methane on Jupiter come from? Whale farts?

 

[westwall]

Where does all that methane come from?

ps: will you be getting back to Matthew's thread? To apologize to him perhaps?

And who cares about your methane anyway, it appears that methane can be decomposed with radio waves. Problem (if there even was one) solved...


It is recommended that several separated, low frequency radio transmitters with large parabolic reflectors transmit powerful radio transmissions into the methane rich zone over the Siberian shelf and cause the methane to decompose almost immediately.



Methane can be decomposed by radio waves with a frequency of 13.56 MHZ which is equivalent to a wavelength of 22.10858835 metres. Experiments have shown that at low pressures, methane concentrations and methane flow rates the process of decomposition is enhanced (Lien – Te et al. 1998).



The 13.56 MHZ radio frequency decomposes methane into nanocrystalline diamond and hydrogen (Mitura et al. 2006). The nanocrystalline diamonds may form a fine highly reflective fine cloud in the stratosphere and enhance the cooling induced by the breakdown of the methane. At lower altitudes the nanodiamonds may form a fine snow which could be harvested on land for use in abrasives.




13.56 MHZ are HF decameter waves, ITU Band No.7 (3 – 30 MHZ frequencies, 10 m – 100 m wavlengths; Lide and Frederickse, 1995).



Arctic News: Decomposing atmospheric methane

 

[orogenicman]

There are no trees growing on Baffin where that moss did not rot, the sand is bone dry, ice cold and has next to no Nitrogen content

If there's water and above-freezing conditions, things will rot. Bacteria are everywhere.

Fungus is not necessary for decay. And those stumps did start decomposing. They're obviously very rotted. But they're solid wood, so the decay is much slower than for soft moss.

You're all reaching, invoking a magic theory about how the tundra is so special, things never rot. The absence of a 100-foot-thick carpet of dead unrotted moss shows the flaw in that strange claim.

It`s you who is reaching. First you latched onto the acidity.
That did not get you anywhere

<snip>

Did you not read my post #31?

 

[Abraham3]

Where does all that methane come from?

I don't know. Where does the methane on Jupiter come from? Whale farts?

You seem to suggest we should draw some conclusion from your ignorance. We can, but I doubt it's the one for which you hoped.

 

[Abraham3]

And who cares about your methane anyway, it appears that methane can be decomposed with radio waves. Problem (if there even was one) solved...

It is recommended that several separated, low frequency radio transmitters with large parabolic reflectors transmit powerful radio transmissions into the methane rich zone over the Siberian shelf and cause the methane to decompose almost immediately.

Methane can be decomposed by radio waves with a frequency of 13.56 MHZ which is equivalent to a wavelength of 22.10858835 metres. Experiments have shown that at low pressures, methane concentrations and methane flow rates the process of decomposition is enhanced (Lien – Te et al. 1998).

The 13.56 MHZ radio frequency decomposes methane into nanocrystalline diamond and hydrogen (Mitura et al. 2006). The nanocrystalline diamonds may form a fine highly reflective fine cloud in the stratosphere and enhance the cooling induced by the breakdown of the methane. At lower altitudes the nanodiamonds may form a fine snow which could be harvested on land for use in abrasives.

13.56 MHZ are HF decameter waves, ITU Band No.7 (3 – 30 MHZ frequencies, 10 m – 100 m wavlengths; Lide and Frederickse, 1995).

Arctic News: Decomposing atmospheric methane

If you want to take up a position not supported by data, reason or rationality, it should come as no surprise to anyone that you will be forced to seek out sources more than a little shy of those qualities.

A couple questions: how much power is required? And do you foresee any undesirable consequences to raining fine abrasives onto our mechanized world?

Comic books...