Methane worse than CO2

[Si modo]

However, it is also irrelevant. There is no solid science indicating that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, thus the irrelevance. As a reminder, correlation is not causation.

OK - then how do you personally explain the fact that, for instance, 99% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat?

How do you explain the fact that ocean levels are rising, and ocean ph changing?

It's one thing to say that it is not a CO2 issue - another to provide an alternative explanation.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Perhaps it's postal costs?

 

[Sodafin]

glaciers advanced and retreated for billions of years before man walked upon the earth

That is true, of course - but does not explain the current trend at all.

Check out some of the research done in Alaska by Anythony Arent's team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Anthony Arendt

Some of the reports are quite long, but if you want to understand this topic - this is a great start.

I really think you will be shocked and disturbed by what you read.

Si modo -

Please try and stay on topic.

 

[Si modo]

glaciers advanced and retreated for billions of years before man walked upon the earth

That is true, of course - but does not explain the current trend at all.

Check out some of the research done in Alaska by Anythony Arent's team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Anthony Arendt

Some of the reports are quite long, but if you want to understand this topic - this is a great start.

I really think you will be shocked and disturbed by what you read.

Si modo -

Please try and stay on topic.

You need to stick with journalism. You suck at science likely because you haven't the capacity even to think like one. You can't even recognize the logical fallacy you continue to promote, even after I dumb it down with a picture.

Thus, as you play in a field obviously out of your league, you are an enemy of science. Don't soil it.

 

[Sodafin]

Si Modo -

When you've had time to take a look at the research from the University of Alaska, by all means get back to us with your thoughts on it.

Or you can just rant, if you prefer.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo -

When you've had time to take a look at the research from the University of Alaska, by all means get back to us with your thoughts on it.

Or you can just rant, if you prefer.

Pointing out your lack of logic is not ranting, but I understand how a 'journalist' wrought with emotion and confused by logic and science might think so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

glaciers advanced and retreated for billions of years before man walked upon the earth

That is true, of course - but does not explain the current trend at all.

Check out some of the research done in Alaska by Anythony Arent's team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Anthony Arendt

Some of the reports are quite long, but if you want to understand this topic - this is a great start.

I really think you will be shocked and disturbed by what you read.

Si modo -

Please try and stay on topic.

of course it does

Just because man is now walking the earth does not mean that all natural events are somehow his fault.

and you're the one who blamed 99% of all glacial retreat on man not me.

And since I started the thread I will choose where the topic goes thank you very much.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Climate change has been a constant in earth's history and will remain a constant.

To think that we can control climate is hubris of the worst sort.

That being said, I am all for less pollution and more environmentally friendly energy but as I have said before and will say again, it is not the the responsibility of government to spend our tax dollars on it.

If government wants to spur growth in these industries of greener energy then the best thing it can do is get out of the way. Rather than taxing people and businesses and making it less likely that we can afford to upgrade, government should be giving massive tax credits to businesses and individuals that design, produce and implement green energy systems of any sort.

These industries should by definition need very little government oversight as they should be less polluting than current energy production there again saving the taxpayers money and allowing more people to avail themselves of the newer technology.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh and Soda was looking for proof of corruption in green energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/world/europe/14wind.html

The town of Santa Lucía Tirajana, host to the annual Grand Slam windsurfing championships, was struck this year with gale force. A yearlong investigation by the Guardia Civil — the Spanish gendarmerie — turned up irregularities in a plan to build a new wind park. Now the mayor, five town officials and two wind park developers are fighting criminal charges that include influence peddling, misuse of public office, misappropriation of land and bribery. The motivation? Up to €40 million in European Union subsidies.

The authorities say it is impossible to quantify the level of fraud in public spending on wind energy because investigations are scattered across different countries among the regional and fiscal police. But critics say the available riches and patchy controls are luring a rogue’s gallery of corrupt politicians and entrepreneurs trying to literally create money out of thin air.

Life lesson:

Wherever large sums of government (taxpayer) money are used for large scale projects, there ye will find corruption.

 

[Bern80]

Without such CO2 policy, there is no chance to make a penny.

More paranoia.

As opposed to the coal and nuclear industries, of course. Because they employ lobbyists as well, don't they? Would you care to tell us how much coal spent on lobbying last year, Si Modo?

A lot of companies around the world will make a lot of money and create a lot of jobs building and exporting solar, wind and osmosis technologies - there is no question about that. They are already are.

They will also do so largely without any government support beyond start-up funding.

The only question is - will the US miss out on this industry entirely, and instead sits around whining about government?

Sure they 'green' industry should be allowed to make money. The difference between them and fossil fuels companies is in the sales pitch. Hell they aren't even trying to 'sell' the idea. They are trying to enact policy to force us to make money for them.

 

[Old Rocks]

First, addressing the subject of the thread.

CO2 and CH4 are not seperate issues. As the increasing heat in our atmosphere melts the permafrost and yedoma, a form of permafrost containing a huge amount of water, enormous amounts of both CO2 and CH4 are emmitted. In fact, some lakes now in the yedoma have spots that never freeze in the winter because of the bubbling of the methane.

As the CO2 in our atmosphere has warmed the oceans, including the Arctic Ocean, the shallow clathrates in the Arctic Ocean have began to emit CH4.

Now CH4 is not just 20 to 25 more times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, it is at least 30 to 60 times as powerful as CO2, because, when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H2O. In the upper atmosphere, the latter is especially effective.

There is no known economical way to use the CH4 that is bubbling out of the lakes, the same goes for the ocean clatherates.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. We have also added 250% more CH4. At no time in the last 15 million years have the GHG levels been this high. Then we have also added industrial gases.

The talk of keeping the CO2 level below 450 ppm is misleading. For, counting the effects of methane and industrial GHGs, we have already reached and surpassed that in equivelant heating effects.

Given the dishonesty of the people regarding the effects of AGW, such as the people we see on this board, I do not see us even making a real attempt to get a handle on the CO2 until it is well past 600 ppm, and the world is losing population from the effects. Not that it makes that much differance, because I think that we have already gone past the tipping point where sometime in this century, the stored carbon in the sinks of the permafrost and clathrates will contribute far more than mankind.

PERMAFROST - POTENTIAL CLIMATE BACKBREAKER - Reversing Climate Change - Zimbio

Scientists Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University, Russia and Judith Marquand of the University of Oxford (I could not find a publication by them on this; this is from an issue of New Scientist) have discovered that permafrost in the western Siberian sub-Arctic region is experiencing relatively rapid thawing due to the extremely rapid warming in the region (~3°C in 40 years). Siberian permafrost differs from North America and Europe because they are underlain by yedoma, an organic-rich Pleistocene-age loess permafrost with ice content of 50-90% by volume (Walter et al., 2006). The rapid warming in western Siberia has exposed much permafrost to thawing and the creation of thermokarst yedoma lakes.

Walter et al. (2006) and Walter et al. (2007) have described the uncertainties in estimating the budget of atmospheric methane production from Siberian and other high latitude lakes because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. However, through a new technique of mapping bubbling point sources, they have been able to estimate that Siberian yedoma lakes emit ~3.8 teragrams (trillion grams) of methane annually, increasing previous estimates of methane released from the lakes by 58%. Because yedoma lakes are only a fraction of northern lakes, ebullition measurements in other lake regions would probably further increase methane emission estimates.

That's all well and fine.

However, it is also irrelevant. There is no solid science indicating that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, thus the irrelevance. As a reminder, correlation is not causation.

As you damned well know, the causation was established by Tyndal in 1858 when he demonstrated what the absorbtion bands of CO2 are.

The fact that you are repeating this refrain indicates that you are ignorant of the science, or that you are a purposeful liar.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Our national energy policy is little more than economic suicide

 

[Si modo]

First, addressing the subject of the thread.

CO2 and CH4 are not seperate issues. As the increasing heat in our atmosphere melts the permafrost and yedoma, a form of permafrost containing a huge amount of water, enormous amounts of both CO2 and CH4 are emmitted. In fact, some lakes now in the yedoma have spots that never freeze in the winter because of the bubbling of the methane.

As the CO2 in our atmosphere has warmed the oceans, including the Arctic Ocean, the shallow clathrates in the Arctic Ocean have began to emit CH4.

Now CH4 is not just 20 to 25 more times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, it is at least 30 to 60 times as powerful as CO2, because, when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H2O. In the upper atmosphere, the latter is especially effective.

There is no known economical way to use the CH4 that is bubbling out of the lakes, the same goes for the ocean clatherates.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. We have also added 250% more CH4. At no time in the last 15 million years have the GHG levels been this high. Then we have also added industrial gases.

The talk of keeping the CO2 level below 450 ppm is misleading. For, counting the effects of methane and industrial GHGs, we have already reached and surpassed that in equivelant heating effects.

Given the dishonesty of the people regarding the effects of AGW, such as the people we see on this board, I do not see us even making a real attempt to get a handle on the CO2 until it is well past 600 ppm, and the world is losing population from the effects. Not that it makes that much differance, because I think that we have already gone past the tipping point where sometime in this century, the stored carbon in the sinks of the permafrost and clathrates will contribute far more than mankind.

PERMAFROST - POTENTIAL CLIMATE BACKBREAKER - Reversing Climate Change - Zimbio

Scientists Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University, Russia and Judith Marquand of the University of Oxford (I could not find a publication by them on this; this is from an issue of New Scientist) have discovered that permafrost in the western Siberian sub-Arctic region is experiencing relatively rapid thawing due to the extremely rapid warming in the region (~3°C in 40 years). Siberian permafrost differs from North America and Europe because they are underlain by yedoma, an organic-rich Pleistocene-age loess permafrost with ice content of 50-90% by volume (Walter et al., 2006). The rapid warming in western Siberia has exposed much permafrost to thawing and the creation of thermokarst yedoma lakes.

Walter et al. (2006) and Walter et al. (2007) have described the uncertainties in estimating the budget of atmospheric methane production from Siberian and other high latitude lakes because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. However, through a new technique of mapping bubbling point sources, they have been able to estimate that Siberian yedoma lakes emit ~3.8 teragrams (trillion grams) of methane annually, increasing previous estimates of methane released from the lakes by 58%. Because yedoma lakes are only a fraction of northern lakes, ebullition measurements in other lake regions would probably further increase methane emission estimates.

That's all well and fine.

However, it is also irrelevant. There is no solid science indicating that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, thus the irrelevance. As a reminder, correlation is not causation.

As you damned well know, the causation was established by Tyndal in 1858 when he demonstrated what the absorbtion bands of CO2 are. ....

Dilettantes often confuse the fundamental mechanism with a claim that man-made CO2 has caused any warming.

.... The fact that you are repeating this refrain indicates that you are ignorant of the science, or that you are a purposeful liar.

The fact that I keep repeating correlation is not causation indicates exactly that - correlation is not causation. The fact that you think it is something else demonstrates your lack of logic again. So far, you've got post hoc ergo propter hoc and false dichotomies going for you.

I wonder how many more fallacies you can squeeze in.

 

[Sodafin]

Si Modo -

Is there any chance at all that you will stop shrieking long enough to actually address some science?

Here again for you is the link to the Alaskan glacier studies for you.

Anthony Arendt

Please take a look at one or two of the reports, and let us know what you think.

Or you can dodge the science and keep ranting, of course.

 

[Sodafin]

Climate change has been a constant in earth's history and will remain a constant.

To think that we can control climate is hubris of the worst sort.
.

And yet the overwhelming majority of scientists - including people of the calibre of Stephen Hawking - so that you are wrong.

"As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces," Professor Hawking said. "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

So are you saying Hawking is motivated by money, or that his knowledge of science is not as strong as your own?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Given the dishonesty of the people regarding the effects of AGW..."

You mean "Hide the decline"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate change has been a constant in earth's history and will remain a constant.

To think that we can control climate is hubris of the worst sort.
.

And yet the overwhelming majority of scientists - including people of the calibre of Stephen Hawking - so that you are wrong.

"As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces," Professor Hawking said. "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

So are you saying Hawking is motivated by money, or that his knowledge of science is not as strong as your own?

"Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data," -- Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Climate change has been a constant in earth's history and will remain a constant.

To think that we can control climate is hubris of the worst sort.
.

And yet the overwhelming majority of scientists - including people of the calibre of Stephen Hawking - so that you are wrong.

"As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces," Professor Hawking said. "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

So are you saying Hawking is motivated by money, or that his knowledge of science is not as strong as your own?

Is Hawking a climatologist?

Where are his peer reviewed research papers on climate change?

And really what makes climate change sooooo bad?

People will adapt and the polar bears will not die.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Our space program makes the Warmers look ridiculous.

The ice caps are melting -- on Mars! Babble on all you want about "Forcing" and deminimus increases in atmospheric trace elements. Our next door neighbor, further away from the Sun is warming at the same time!

How can the Sun be warming Mars, but not Earth?

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo -

Is there any chance at all that you will stop shrieking long enough to actually address some science?

Here again for you is the link to the Alaskan glacier studies for you.

Anthony Arendt

Please take a look at one or two of the reports, and let us know what you think.

Or you can dodge the science and keep ranting, of course.

Irrespective of your projections, I've looked at your link the first time you posted it. Interesting. Yet, as correlation is not causation, do you have a point?

 

[Sodafin]

Is Hawking a climatologist?

Where are his peer reviewed research papers on climate change?

And really what makes climate change sooooo bad?

People will adapt and the polar bears will not die.

Firstly, Hawking is not a climatologist - but as you may be aware, much of climatology is based on physics, an area Hawking is probably one of the worlds most highly respected authorities on.

Until you explain why he is wrong - I'm going to take his word on this.

Why climate change is bad is startlingly obvious, and can be seen already in Spain, Australia, Holland, Bangladesh...you name it. There will be more droughts, more desertification, stranger and stronger storms, shifts in patterns of disease (imagine malaria hitting LA? It could happen) rising sea levels, and a chronic lack of water from people who rely on glacial melt for drinking and agriculture.

Yes, we'll adapt - but it might not be easy for countries who are 20 years behind the race to be ready.