CDZ avoiding climate catastrophe : paying attention to our methane output should be of bigger concern to us, i and quite a few others think

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can get any position YOU WANT out of a govt science agency dude. Here's the cogent example ALSO FROM NASA.

You mean "I can" -- given you're determined enough to refer back to a 25-year-old document as though it could simply be presumed NASA's position today and don't care one iota about horribly mixing apples with oranges.
Disclaimer: This page is kept for historical purposes, but the content is no longer actively updated. For more on NASA Science, visit https://science.nasa.gov.
Published:
Oct 5, 1997
Me? Sorry, I don't waste my time entertaining silly notions like Gee, "CLIMATE.NASA" and "SCIENCE.NASA" must be at odds! I look up stuff like "Global Warming" to what international climate scientists really mean by the term and how it's measured instead. How they gather the global surface air temperature (SAT) and sea surface temperature (SST) data actually involved.. obviously neither of which depend upon satellite data. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with weather data satellites. They just haven't been around all that long. But you know all this too. You're not stupid. You just enjoy pretending to be. Well, whatever floats your dinghy there, fella. If it takes incessant denial to get you out of bed in the morning, more power to ya.
 
You mean "I can" -- given you're determined enough to refer back to a 25-year-old document as though it could simply be presumed NASA's position today and don't care one iota about horribly mixing apples with oranges.

Me? Sorry, I don't waste my time entertaining silly notions like Gee, "CLIMATE.NASA" and "SCIENCE.NASA" must be at odds! I look up stuff like "Global Warming" to what international climate scientists really mean by the term and how it's measured instead. How they gather the global surface air temperature (SAT) and sea surface temperature (SST) data actually involved.. obviously neither of which depend upon satellite data. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with weather data satellites. They just haven't been around all that long. But you know all this too. You're not stupid. You just enjoy pretending to be. Well, whatever floats your dinghy there, fella. If it takes incessant denial to get you out of bed in the morning, more power to ya.

I remind you that this thread in the CDZ and WE are not the topic.

You did not comment about the STUPIDITY of the explanations in your link. About the 6th grade excuses they used to ASSERT (not prove) the argument about sat vs thermometers.

And you also did comment about the BIGGER "puzzle pieces" of sorting thru 30,000 thermometer readings that are NOT UNIFORMLY distributed and DO NOT cover more than 40% of the globe ADEQUATELY. You're all wound up with "appeal to authority" propaganda that never CITES FACTS -- just writes fables for masses.

What did you SEE in that link you put up that made ANY scientific argument?
 
I remind you that this thread in the CDZ and WE are not the topic.
Okay, so stop saying "WE." I couldn't agree more. Stop doing that.
You did not comment about the STUPIDITY of the explanations in your link. About the 6th grade excuses they used to ASSERT (not prove) the argument about sat vs thermometers.
True, because that's plainly just your spin and not the topic. Once more, "sat" stands for Surface Air Temperature, not satellite anything. Thermometers are understandably what both 6th graders and NASA prefer when measuring Surface Air Temperature (according to my link, not simply my opinion).
And you also did comment about the BIGGER "puzzle pieces" of sorting thru 30,000 thermometer readings that are NOT UNIFORMLY distributed and DO NOT cover more than 40% of the globe ADEQUATELY. You're all wound up with "appeal to authority" propaganda that never CITES FACTS -- just writes fables for masses.
I'm not the topic and combining Surface Air Temperatures with Sea Surface Temperatures obviously covers "more than 40% of the globe {surface} ADEQUATELY."

Sea Surface Temperature (SST) - Office of Satellite and Product Operations

Climate science marches on, like all science. Never fully satisfied. Always striving to "see" more and better. No surprise, really. I agree with the OP:

"our methane output should be of bigger concern to us"​

Hmm, "our", "us"? Sounds like "WE" :omg:
 
Last edited:
True, because that's plainly just your spin and not the topic. Once more, "sat" stands for Surface Air Temperature, not satellite anything.

Funny -- when I worked at KennedySpaceCenter -- everyone would KNOW "sat" meant a satellite. LOL.. And the proper acronym for the global warming anomaly is GMAST (Global Mean Average Surface Temperature) -- not "sat" (lower case).

Global warming just doesn't warm the 1st 2 feet of surface. You can measure sea wave heights to about a millimeter from sats repeatedly. Same with measuring CLOSE to the surface with the layers of oxygen emitting microwaves that vary in a KNOWN WAY with temperature variations. If GW is happening, it's happening the entire atmosphere and you can only research that with satellites.

RSS/UAH algorithms take the average lower few thousand feet of troposphere. You're looking mainly for the change over time in temp. Thermometers are VERY problematic. They are confounded by altitude, by proximity to man-made cities and objects, some are carried by ICE flows around in the cold seas. And they dont measure the WARMING due to weather patterns that either BRING warmer/colder air TO the surface or not. Also --- AT THE SURFACE -- GW VARIES by region. SIGNIFICANTLY LESS in the tropics and Antarctica than elsewhere.

And guess what? Look at the NOAA map of stations I posted. Those areas ARE HIGHLY VOID of stations. SO are the oceans.

It's NOT my spin. I ASKED YOU to point out ANY factual arguments or DATA in that propaganda link you posted to SUPPORT the concept of SOMEHOW -- 30,000 RANDOMLY tossed thermometers that cover less then 40% of Earth's surface ARE BETTER than a perfectly tuned sat fleet that has REPEATABLE TOTAL surface coverage of more than 85% of Earth's surface area and have an INATE accuracy of 0.03DegC (raw -- but can be averaged for GREATER) temperature accuracy.

You still haven't done that.
Because you CAN NOT. THere is no factual arguments or data in your Climate.NASA propaganda -- just smoke and mirrors for the masses -- which is what Climate.NASA is PAID TO DO...
 
Last edited:
I'm not the topic and combining Surface Air Temperatures with Sea Surface Temperatures obviously covers "more than 40% of the globe {surface} ADEQUATELY."

Copy the NOAA map I gave you and outline HOW MUCH of the globe is "thermometer measured". SEA OR LAND. It's less than 40%. In case you haven't figured it out -- the dots are the positions of the ONLY thermometers used to measure global surf. temp. What the 6th grader link you provided would call -- a can of worms -- inside a box of 30,000 puzzle pieces -- THAT MUST HAVE COMPLEX modeling to fill in all the gaps in thermometer locations.

And that's where the "fudging" of surface record happens.

Where do you think "sea surface measurements" come from? You'd be surprised to learn that NOAA back around 2005, in an attempt to BOOST SSTemps -- brought back a technique from 18th/19tth Centuries of "bucket measurements" from random passing ships. AND (amazingly) they WEIGHTED this awful "bucket and ship intake" DATA EQUALLY with their sparse mid ocean buoy data.
 
Last edited:
Funny -- when I worked at KennedySpaceCenter -- everyone would KNOW "sat" meant a satellite. LOL..
Yeah, funny fallacious appeal to authority via unverifiable personal anecdote. Perhaps this topic really is all about YOUR personal preferences? But man, how that takes me back to my decades spent at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,.. ah, but I digress.. Clearly "SAT" can and has been used to mean lots of things, "Surface Air Temperature" included. Don't like it? What--ever!
Global warming just doesn't warm the 1st 2 feet of surface. You can measure sea wave heights to about a millimeter from sats repeatedly. Same with measuring CLOSE to the surface with the layers of oxygen emitting microwaves that vary in a KNOWN WAY with temperature variations. If GW is happening, it's happening the entire atmosphere and you can only research that with satellites.

RSS/UAH algorithms take the average lower few thousand feet of troposphere. You're looking mainly for the change over time in temp. Thermometers are VERY problematic. They are confounded by altitude, by proximity to man-made cities and objects, some are carried by ICE flows around in the cold seas. And they dont measure the WARMING due to weather patterns that either BRING warmer/colder air TO the surface or not. Also --- AT THE SURFACE -- GW VARIES by region. SIGNIFICANTLY LESS in the tropics and Antarctica than elsewhere.

And guess what? Look at the NOAA map of stations I posted. Those areas ARE HIGHLY VOID of stations. SO are the oceans.
Lot's of factual assertions there without links, let alone quotes, from you know, actual climate scientists. Worse yet, no apparent point! No one's argued with any of that.
It's NOT my spin. I ASKED YOU to point out ANY factual arguments or DATA in that propaganda link you posted to SUPPORT the concept of SOMEHOW -- 30,000 RANDOMLY tossed thermometers that cover less then 40% of Earth's surface ARE BETTER than a perfectly tuned sat fleet that has REPEATABLE TOTAL surface coverage of more than 85% of Earth's surface area and have an INATE accuracy of 0.03DegC (raw -- but can be averaged for GREATER) temperature accuracy.

You still haven't done that.
Because you CAN NOT.
No, because I said nothing to the contrary. You invent foes and false narratives to argue with yourself about. Sorry, but only you can help you with that.
THere is no factual arguments or data in your Climate.NASA propaganda -- just smoke and mirrors for the masses -- which is what Climate.NASA is PAID TO DO...
Gee, lot's of "factual argument" there!
Copy the NOAA map I gave you and outline HOW MUCH of the globe is "thermometer measured". SEA OR LAND. It's less than 40%. In case you haven't figured it out -- the dots are the positions of the ONLY thermometers used to measure global surf. temp. What the 6th grader link you provided would call -- a can of worms -- inside a box of 30,000 puzzle pieces -- THAT MUST HAVE COMPLEX modeling to fill in all the gaps in thermometer locations.

And that's where the "fudging" of surface record happens.

Where do you think "sea surface measurements" come from? You'd be surprised to learn that NOAA back around 2005, in an attempt to BOOST SSTemps -- brought back a technique from 18th/19tth Centuries of "bucket measurements" from random passing ships. AND (amazingly) they WEIGHTED this awful "bucket and ship intake" DATA EQUALLY with their sparse mid ocean buoy data.
No, I would not be the least bit "surprised." Your admission here that still 'MUCH of the globe is "thermometer measured"' amounts to some progress though. We logically started with thermometers because that's we had. We never have any choice but to do the best we can with what we've got. Now we increasingly use satellites. This really is 6th grade stuff. Sorry, government climate scientists, NASA, NOAA, the IPCC,.. are simply not at war with one another. Prove otherwise with authoritative quotes and links or kindly go fish.
 
Yeah, funny fallacious appeal to authority via unverifiable personal anecdote. Perhaps this topic really is all about YOUR personal preferences? But man, how that takes me back to my decades spent at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,.. ah, but I digress.. Clearly "SAT" can and has been used to mean lots of things, "Surface Air Temperature" included. Don't like it? What--ever!

Sorry you dont believe me. Wish I had a camera the day I walked down the stairs into the KSC HQ lobby and saw it JAMMED packed with people (and foreign visitors and NOBODY going out the west door to the parking lot. Pretty quickly, after about 1/2 dozen people TRIED to walk out the door and got LAUGHED at when they came running back in -- I saw the problem. The Game Wardens (KSC has a LOT of game wardens because they PHYSICALLY have to REMOVE gators/snakes/large birds etc before every launch and GENERALLY protect the workers) were WRESTLING with a 5 foot gator right outside the doors and eventually loaded into a pickup.

But cameras are not allowed outside what the tourists have access to.

Or why I couldn't go out on an active launch site because my beard prevented a good seal on the hefty face masks. Or what it's like to play lunchtime handball in the astronaut training gym and see the "legacy lockers" with all original astronauts names on them. Or watch a moon rover take distinguished guests for rides around the parking lot.

This isn't much of debate or discussion. More like an inquisition

Sorry, government climate scientists, NASA, NOAA, the IPCC,.. are simply not at war with one another.

Sorry. Science BY NATURE is ALWAYS at war with itself. NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are all GOVT institutions that swim with the latest political direction. They do not represent even a significant percentage of active scientists. But this doesn't explain why you CLING to ONE citation from a site built for schoolkids and scientifically retarded.
 
Sorry you dont believe me.
Sorry, irrelevant and illogical, especially within a "Clean Debate Zone." Sad that a Senior Moderator needs to have that explained to them.
This isn't much of debate or discussion. More like an inquisition
Cry it all out..
Science BY NATURE is ALWAYS at war with itself. NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are all GOVT institutions that swim with the latest political direction. They do not represent even a significant percentage of active scientists. But this doesn't explain why you CLING to ONE citation from a site built for schoolkids and scientifically retarded.
Baloney, but if believing so helps you sleep at night.. Done yet?
 

Scientists say this invisible gas could seal our fate on climate change​

By Rachel Ramirez, CNN
Updated 0208 GMT (1008 HKT) August 12, 2021

(CNN)Slashing carbon dioxide emissions is critical to ending the climate crisis. But, for the first time, the UN climate change report emphasized the need to control a more insidious culprit: methane, an invisible, odorless gas with more than 80 times more warming power in the near-term than carbon dioxide.
According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is higher now than any time in at least 800,000 years.
With Earth rapidly approaching the 1.5-degree-Celsius threshold above preindustrial levels, scientists say methane emissions need to be reduced fast. Charles Koven, a lead author of the IPCC report, said this is due to methane's incredible warming power.
Earth is warming faster than previously thought, scientists say, and the window is closing to avoid catastrophic outcomes
Earth is warming faster than previously thought, scientists say, and the window is closing to avoid catastrophic outcomes
"The fastest way that we might mitigate some of the climate change that we're seeing already in the short term is by reducing methane," Koven told CNN. "If we were to reduce methane emissions, it would act to offset one of these sources of warming."
If the world stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, Koven said, global temperatures wouldn't begin to cool for many years because of how long the gas stays in the atmosphere. Reducing methane is the easiest knob to turn to change the path of global temperature in the next 10 years, he said.
Methane, the main component of the natural gas we use to fuel our stoves and heat our homes, can be produced in nature by belching volcanoes and decomposing plant matter. But it is also pumped into the atmosphere in much larger amounts by landfills, livestock and the oil and gas industry.

Natural gas has been hailed as a "bridge fuel" that would transition the US to renewable energy because it is more efficient than coal and emits less carbon dioxide when burned. Importantly for industry, natural gas is in abundant supply around the world and is less costly to extract from the ground.


But proponents for this new "cleaner" gas missed a dangerous threat: that it could leak, unburned, into the atmosphere and cause significant warming.
Methane can leak from oil and natural gas wells, natural gas pipelines and the processing equipment itself. According to data from the US Energy Information Administration, the US has thousands of active wells for natural gas, millions of abandoned oil and gas wells, about two million miles of natural gas pipelines, and several refineries that process the gas.
One in three Americans lives in a county with oil and gas operations, posing climate and public health risks, according to a report by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Until recently, tracking the location and magnitude of methane leaks was difficult. Now, infrared cameras and advanced satellites can estimate methane emissions around the globe, giving scientists and regulators insight into what's being released from facilities.
Climatologists at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration previously told CNN that pernicious changes in the climate system will only intensify unless people stop using fuels that burn and leak greenhouse gases like methane.
"For carbon dioxide, we've always known about power plants and smokestacks and things like that; but with methane, until recent years, we didn't understand how much an influence a small number of large sources have really had," Robert Jackson, professor of environmental science at Stanford University, told CNN. "We didn't understand how long the tail was and how important the super-emitters were for reducing emissions."
The latest IPCC assessment highlights that scientists now have a better understanding of how much methane is being released by human activity like agriculture and the fossil fuel industry, and how much it contributes to the climate crisis.

Around the world, fossil fuels, agriculture and coal mining are skyrocketing methane emissions. Nonetheless, the production and sources vary by region. In the North America, a majority -- 14% of total methane emissions -- come from the oil and gas production followed by livestock at 10%. In China, coal mining is the biggest methane driver, contributing 24% to total emissions.
Though agriculture is a major source of methane, Jackson said the emissions from farming and food production would be harder to tackle.
"There are only certain things we can do with cattle," Jackson said. "We can either ask people to stop eating beef or we can try and give cattle feed additives to change the microbes in the chemistry of their guts. But that's not easy to do for billions of cattle around the world."
The International Energy Agency estimate that the oil and gas industry around the world can reduce methane by 75% using the technology already available. It also estimates that 40% of the emissions could be reduced without extra costs, since the natural gas captured could then be sold.
Flaring at a natural gas processing facility in North Dakota.


Flaring at a natural gas processing facility in North Dakota.
Climate activists like Lisa DeVille, a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, are urging policymakers to make stringent methane reductions. The Bakken oil field in North Dakota surrounds the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, where DeVille lives, with nearly 1,000 oil and gas wells that scientists found in 2016 was leaking 275,000 tons of methane per year.
"This means the land that is part of my identity as an Indigenous woman has been turned into a pollution-filled industrial zone," DeVille said. "This is unacceptable."
As the co-founder of the grassroots group Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights, DeVille is tackling environmental regulations head-on. In 2018, the organization successfully sued the Trump administration's Bureau of Land Management for rolling back a critical methane waste prevention rule.
Global temperatures are now at 1.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to the report, and the planet is already seeing the impact in the form of extreme fire behavior, severe flooding, relentless drought and deadly heat waves.
The IPCC report makes clear that stopping methane emissions is key to slowing the planet from reaching 1.5 degrees. Scientists say world leaders need to act immediately in tackling all greenhouse gas emissions, and not just carbon dioxide.
Climate scientists have done their bit. Now the pressure is on leaders for COP26.
Climate scientists have done their bit. Now the pressure is on leaders for COP26.
Rick Duke, senior director and White House liaison for John Kerry, President Biden's special climate envoy, told CNN in a press call that reducing methane, and methane leaks, is a top priority for the Biden administration.
"There's been incredible largely behind-the-scenes effort already to prepare to move faster and more comprehensively to cut methane domestically, at the same time that we're addressing this as a diplomatic imperative," Duke said.
Already, pressure is mounting. In June, DeVille discussed tribal issues, particularly slashing methane emissions and transitioning to clean energy quickly and equitably, with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan.
"What we do in the next few years will determine what kind of world we have, what kind of world we leave for our children," said DeVille, who is now seeking to meet with Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to discuss similar issues. "We must rapidly switch to clean energy, stop fossil fuel carbon pollution, and then methane leaks."
CNN's Drew Kann and John Keefe contributed to this report.

My question, especially to the Republican audience and leaders that frequent this forum, is this :
Would you allow Biden to curtail the US' methane output, and with that set an example for the rest of NATO and the world?
An example that by the way would increase world-wide goodwill for the USA.


I don't think that Biden could lessen the amount of methane coming from both ends of his body. And, the same with this idiotic information from these communist scientists as well. No, we won't be forced into communism. We the people will fight back again.
 
The largest source by far of unburned methane is from undersea deposits of frozen methane that simply bubbles up through the sea water as it sublimates into the atmosphere with no possible way to stop it. The Article is bullshit and paid for by green scammers.
Actually "it tends to bubble up" BECAUSE we are warming the water AND..
Melting the Permafrost that is also a Huge source.
CH4 is snowball we started rolling.

`
 
you'll need to prove that argument with independent source data.

from what i know, CO2 pollution has already caused major extra methane releases from Siberia, and all those cows and pigs we raise for our meat and dairy ain't doing the planet (and thus us humans as well) any good either.

On top of that, the events in Siberia are very likely to spread to that rather large piece of land called Greenland, where there is *also* a lot of still partially frozen permafrost soil holding a *lot* of methane.

i'll be happy to continue this once you come up with scientific data that outlines how much methane gets released without human interaction, like from the sea bed (and btw, who is to prove that that is not increased by rising temperatures?), and how much methane is going up into the air due to human activities...

"(CNN)Slashing carbon dioxide emissions is critical to ending the climate crisis. But, for the first time, the UN climate change report emphasized the need to control a more insidious culprit: methane, an invisible, odorless gas with more than 80 times more warming power in the near-term than carbon dioxide."

A classic misdirection because almost nothing still means almost nothing for CH4

===

The author of your silly article fails to do the Methane math forcing here it is from Willis Eschenbauch

"Per the standard formula, CH4 doubling from 1.7 to 3.4 ppmv gives an additional 0.31 W/m2. MODTRAN presumably includes the CH4 decomposition products of H2O and CO2:

CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O, both greenhouse gases.

So it gives 0.88 W/m2 for that doubling.

BUT we’re a long way from doubling methane, and even if we did it’s still a tiny component.

w.
 
Thats the most ridiculous statement the internet this year. CO2 pollution causes methane releases? Explain that nonsense plese.
CO2 has raised global temperatures (triggering an increase in forest fires, which releases even more CO2)..

this in turn melts the permafrosts in places like Greenland and the Russian tundra areas, releasing methane previously trapped in ice.
 
Thats the most ridiculous statement the internet this year. CO2 pollution causes methane releases? Explain that nonsense plese.
These guys are experts at creating chain blame. Sometimes the chain gets so long that there's no resemblance between the beginning of the chain and the end of the chain. Supposedly CO2 release has brought the temperature up to the point wherein we are now melting frozen methane reservoirs beneath much of the permanent tundra. Ergo they put the two together and blame the CO2 for the methane release. This is very similar to someone actually believing that at ship christenings... The fellow who pushes the boat out into the ocean is actually supplying the inertia to the 200,000 ton vehicle with his human arm. He pushed the boat so that must be the reason why it went out into the ocean. Lol. The best approach in dealing with Lefty is to go get training for kindergarten teacher.

Jo
 
These guys are experts at creating chain blame. Sometimes the chain gets so long that there's no resemblance between the beginning of the chain and the end of the chain. Supposedly CO2 release has brought the temperature up to the point wherein we are now melting frozen methane reservoirs beneath much of the permanent tundra. Ergo they put the two together and blame the CO2 for the methane release. This is very similar to someone actually believing that at ship christenings... The fellow who pushes the boat out into the ocean is actually supplying the inertia to the 200,000 ton vehicle with his human arm. He pushed the boat so that must be the reason why it went out into the ocean. Lol. The best approach in dealing with Lefty is to go get training for kindergarten teacher.

Jo
who are you to say that your comparison between boats and humans pushing them into the water is equitable to CO2 not being the cause for permafrost methane release?
where's your DATA? where's you layman's ANALYSIS of that data?
 
who are you to say that your comparison between boats and humans pushing them into the water is equitable to CO2 not being the cause for permafrost methane release?
where's your DATA? where's you layman's ANALYSIS of that data?
Yeah... I used to take them up on that but I realized that if you spent the hours it takes to piece everything out and prove it to them sentenced by sentence it still doesn't matter because they don't want to hear it... they only want to hear what agrees with their preconceived ideas:

CO2 must die.... All combustion must cease.... Everyone must pay a thousand percent for the same amount of energy because that's the good thing to do.

I mean what do you do with a bunch of lunatics like this?

Jo
 
Yeah... I used to take them up on that but I realized that if you spent the hours it takes to piece everything out and prove it to them sentenced by sentence it still doesn't matter because they don't want to hear it... they only want to hear what agrees with their preconceived ideas:

CO2 must die.... All combustion must cease.... Everyone must pay a thousand percent for the same amount of energy because that's the good thing to do.

I mean what do you do with a bunch of lunatics like this?

Jo
Feel free to ignore the actual lunatics among the anti-CO2 crowd, like you would with the lunatics in any crowd.

But the base science has merit, i think.
And investing in new energy sources, certainly has merit, because of that.
 
Feel free to ignore the actual lunatics among the anti-CO2 crowd, like you would with the lunatics in any crowd.

But the base science has merit, i think.
And investing in new energy sources, certainly has merit, because of that.
Yes...we should move forward and away from hydrocarbons. Combustion is sloppy and horribly inefficient.

I believe that we will eventually overcome the entropy challenges with fusion technologies and all of this debate over carbon and renewable will simply vanish.
 
Peacefan, why did you IGNORE my POST 271 that refutes your entire thread?

CH4 is a negligible contributor to the "heat" budget.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top