Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring? It could well be termites emitting the gas there. It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.

The graph from nature is unfamiliar to me. So you have significant text top go along with it, or did you pull that our of a hat? Mind you, I know what it says, but I prefer to know the specific source and read what the author had in mind when he produced that graph. Got a link?

So you don't believe that the fact that atmospheric concentrations of one of the most potent greenhouse gases around increased from just below 1650 ppm to around 1750 ppm in just 20 years is a problem? Really? Why is that?

As for taking measurements at Mauna Loa, we've done so for decades. If there was a problem, we wouldn't be doing it. there Next.

Seriously? A geologist asking why Mauna Loa presents problems for taking CH4 measurements?? There is a at least a 15ppm differential between M.Loa and Global average.. Does this ring a bell??

I'll trace back the source of that Nature pix...

Why don't I see a problem?? Because the RATE of atmos methane has pretty much DECREASED for 20 yrs.. Didn't say it COULDN'T be a climate accelerant..

Except for after reading some of those references you cut last night -- I'm now MORE CONCERNED about SEISMIC events causing a huge release than I am about about 1.4degC rise in the "trigger"..

 

[itfitzme]

Historically? Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out. And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed. And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.

Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy ? study

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf

Methane has a freezing point of -300 F, so you must be thinking of Methane on the other planets, right?

So that's your thought? Actual frozen methane? Ergo, can't be because obviously, no one has considered that methane freezing point is -300F?

It is a good question, not a good point.

"Methane and the risk of runaway global warming"

"The sediments and bottom water beneath the world’s shallow oceans and lakes contain vast amounts of greenhouse gases: methane hydrates and methane clathrates (see Figure 1). In particular methane is concentrated in Arctic permafrost where the accumulation of organic matter in frozen soils covers about 24% of northern hemisphere continents (see Figure 2a) and is estimated to contain more than 900 billion tons of carbon.

Methane, a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than CO2, is released from previously frozen soils when organic matter thaws and decomposes under anaerobic conditions (that is, without oxygen present)."



Arctic Methane » Arctic Methane | GeoengineeringWatch.org

Methane and the risk of runaway global warming » Methane and the risk of runaway global warming | GeoengineeringWatch.org

 

[itfitzme]

A better point;

"Reduced methane growth rate explained by decreased Northern Hemisphere microbial sources"


"Atmospheric methane (CH4) increased through much of the twentieth century, but this trend gradually weakened until a stable state was temporarily reached around the turn of the millennium1, 2, after which levels increased once more3. The reasons for the slowdown are incompletely understood, with past work identifying changes in fossil fuel, wetland and agricultural sources and hydroxyl (OH) sinks as important causal factors1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here we show that the late-twentieth-century changes in the CH4 growth rates are best explained by reduced microbial sources in the Northern Hemisphere. Our results, based on synchronous time series of atmospheric CH4 mixing and 13C/12C ratios and a two-box atmospheric model, indicate that the evolution of the mixing ratio requires no significant change in Southern Hemisphere sources between 1984 and 2005. Observed changes in the interhemispheric difference of 13C effectively exclude reduced fossil fuel emissions as the primary cause of the slowdown. The 13C observations are consistent with long-term reductions in agricultural emissions or another microbial source within the Northern Hemisphere. Approximately half (51 ± 18%) of the decrease in Northern Hemisphere CH4 emissions can be explained by reduced emissions from rice agriculture in Asia over the past three decades associated with increases in fertilizer application9 and reductions in water use."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/nature10259.html

 

[itfitzme]

A better point;

Not a big trend there.

"This chart shows the atmospheric measurement of methane at Point Barrow cover the last 2.5 years:"

"First, the horizontal red bar shows the lowest boundary of the yearly methane measured a few weeks ago. Methane always hits a low annual concentration at Point Barrow around the middle of the year, usually in June as part the natural fluctuations. *This year we saw the highest low point ever recorded. *This is significant because it shows the underlying long-term growth rate. *If you compare this year's low point to last year's, you get a sense of the upward turn in the atmospheric methane concentrations.

At the top of this graphic in the large red circle are several "anomalous" readings that were recorded over Barrow last year just about the time that GAC-2012 was hitting. *These are huge outliers, but because there were several of them occurring all about the same time, we can also assume they were valid data in the sense that it was really being recorded properly. *In direct email discussions with staff at Barrow station at the time, they characterized these as "likely" local anthropogenic sources, i.e. outgassing from drilling rigs, etc. *Note the word "likely". *These samples are sent back to a lab for analysis that can better describe the sources. *My hunch, and again, this is only a hunch, is that GAC-2012 or simply the very low ice levels of last summer or some combination, may have brought up more methane and caused these very high anomalous readings. It is also important to note that all the data points in the graph that are orange have yet to be fully validated-- though they are in the vast majority of cases.

Finally, in the small red circle is one the latest readings from Barrow. *It continues to show the higher long-term upward trend is accelerating and also shows the remainder of 2013 should be interesting to watch, as it will likely show the strong growth rate of methane in the Arctic atmosphere. Though the level will oscillate up and down a bit between now and its annual peak in early 2014, we should monitor the rest of the summer Arctic melt season for the kinds of "anomalies" that we saw last year. I will especially look for a period of anomalously high levels should another large cyclone hit in August or even September when sea ice is at its lowest. "


Arctic Atmospheric Methane Trends 2013 - Arctic Sea Ice

 

[itfitzme]

Problem is, that as points go, if you're honest a do due dilligence, you get

"Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA"
by FishOutofWater Jun 14, 2013 7:34am PDT


"Some of the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations we've measured have been large, and we're seeing very different patterns from what models suggest," Miller said. "We saw large, regional-scale episodic bursts of higher-than-normal carbon dioxide and methane in interior Alaska and across the North Slope during the spring thaw, and they lasted until after the fall refreeze. To cite another example, in July 2012 we saw methane levels over swamps in the Innoko Wilderness that were 650 parts per billion higher than normal background levels. That's similar to what you might find in a large city."

Daily Kos :: Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA

 

[itfitzme]

Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring? It could well be termites emitting the gas there. It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.

The graph from nature is unfamiliar to me. So you have significant text top go along with it, or did you pull that our of a hat? Mind you, I know what it says, but I prefer to know the specific source and read what the author had in mind when he produced that graph. Got a link?

So you don't believe that the fact that atmospheric concentrations of one of the most potent greenhouse gases around increased from just below 1650 ppm to around 1750 ppm in just 20 years is a problem? Really? Why is that?

As for taking measurements at Mauna Loa, we've done so for decades. If there was a problem, we wouldn't be doing it. there Next.

I don't think he can give you an actual source. To do that, he'd have to either admit to perscribing to the methodology employed by climate change science, throw out his graph as evidence, or admit he cherry picks. Either way, sourcing it is likely to demolish his credibility.

The only way he can maintain a coherent story is by cherry picking out of established research that goes completely contrary to his position. Ergo why he randomly sites sources.

It is basically this: 97% of the established science fully supports AWG. As such, on average, 3% of any journal article will raise some point that brings up new considerations regarding how to improve the AWG science. So, to support an denier position means that 97% of sources have to be hidden as some 3% of the article is cherry picked out of context to "prove" an unsustainable position.

I wouldn't take the graph on face value. For all you know, it is a graph of some subset of the total volume of methane.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/476157a.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/nature10259.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/nature10352.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/nature10259.html

 

[itfitzme]

Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change

Gail Whiteman,*Chris Hope*& Peter Wadhams*Nature 499, 401–403 (25 July 2013)*Published online 24 July 2013

"The methane pulse will bring forward by 15–35 years the average date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels"

"We calculate that the costs of a melting Arctic will be huge, because the region is pivotal to the functioning of Earth systems such as oceans and the climate. The release of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea, off northern Russia, alone comes with an average global price tag of $60 trillion in the absence of mitigating action — a figure comparable to the size of the world economy in 2012 (about $70 trillion). The total cost of Arctic change will be much higher."

"Economic time bomb
As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate4, 5, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly6. Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea-ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The ramifications will be felt far from the poles.l

Bubbles of methane emerge from sediments below a frozen Alaskan lake.



Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

 

[itfitzme]

"so you must be thinking of Methane on the other planets, right?"

Wrong. That would be what you are thinking. It is an obvious case of ordinary projection. Taking a personal attribute and projecting it onto someone else. We actually "project" and "transfer" all the time. We don't have anything to go on except past experience. So, until we actually know the individual personally, build a mental model of them from experience of them, we rely on projecting and tramsfering. It only get's labeled "projection" and "transferance" in psychology, when it becomes dysfunctional. Otherwise, there is no sense in calling it anything because something that happens all the time isn't so much of an interesting something.

But, like those optical illusions, where it is normal but highlighted in bold relief, we occasionally get to see an otherwise ordinary process highlighted in bold relief.

So there it is. "so you must be thinking of Methane on the other planets, right?" is projection. Obviously, the person making the statement is thinking it. Obviously, the person he is refering to is not. It's ordinary, run of the mill, normal psychology projection.

I do it all the time, not that particular way.

Cool

 

[westwall]

Historically? Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out. And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed. And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.

Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy ? study

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf

Still havn't answered the question. When did the methane release begin?

Methane has been released in many places around the world nearly since life first began on the planet. That's not the issue. The issue is what we see below:

The increase in global atmospheric methane concentrations had slowed down for a while, but has picked up again since 2006, as reported by the World Meteorological Organization (via ClimateProgress):

Methane (CH4) contributes about 18% to the overall global increase in radiative forcing since 1750 and is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide.

Before the start of the industrial era, atmospheric methane was about 700 parts per billion (number of molecules of the gas per billion molecules of dry air) Since 1750, it has increased 158%, mostly because of activities such as cattle-rearing, rice planting, fossil fuel exploitation and landfills. Human activities now account for 60% of methane emissions, with the remaining 40% being from natural sources such as wetlands.

After a period of temporary relative stabilization from 1999 to 2006, atmospheric methane has again risen. Scientists are conducting research into the reasons for this, including the potential role of the thawing of the methane-rich Northern permafrost and increased emissions from tropical wetlands.

And as I've already pointed out, that Arctic research is showing that the permafrost off the northern coast of Siberia is melting and releasing prodigious amounts of CH4.

Still avoiding the question I see. And your little graph is meaningless. Especially when you admit when the methane outgassing began in the Arctic....that's why you're avoiding that like the plague.....

 

[westwall]

Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring? It could well be termites emitting the gas there. It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.

The graph from nature is unfamiliar to me. So you have significant text top go along with it, or did you pull that our of a hat? Mind you, I know what it says, but I prefer to know the specific source and read what the author had in mind when he produced that graph. Got a link?

So you don't believe that the fact that atmospheric concentrations of one of the most potent greenhouse gases around increased from just below 1650 ppm to around 1750 ppm in just 20 years is a problem? Really? Why is that?

As for taking measurements at Mauna Loa, we've done so for decades. If there was a problem, we wouldn't be doing it. there Next.

Tellingly there is NO massive plume in the Arctic.

 

[westwall]

Stratospheric methane has a broader range of concentrations, so the second graph has a different scale. Why is this a problem for you? As for the methane levels in Argentina, do you have specific evidence that termites are responsible there or are you simply throwing out a red herring? It could well be termites emitting the gas there. It could also be the fact that they've cut down millions of acres of forest and turned those lands into grazing lands for cattle.

The graph from nature is unfamiliar to me. So you have significant text top go along with it, or did you pull that our of a hat? Mind you, I know what it says, but I prefer to know the specific source and read what the author had in mind when he produced that graph. Got a link?

So you don't believe that the fact that atmospheric concentrations of one of the most potent greenhouse gases around increased from just below 1650 ppm to around 1750 ppm in just 20 years is a problem? Really? Why is that?

As for taking measurements at Mauna Loa, we've done so for decades. If there was a problem, we wouldn't be doing it. there Next.

Seriously? A geologist asking why Mauna Loa presents problems for taking CH4 measurements?? There is a at least a 15ppm differential between M.Loa and Global average.. Does this ring a bell??

I'll trace back the source of that Nature pix...

Why don't I see a problem?? Because the RATE of atmos methane has pretty much DECREASED for 20 yrs.. Didn't say it COULDN'T be a climate accelerant..

Except for after reading some of those references you cut last night -- I'm now MORE CONCERNED about SEISMIC events causing a huge release than I am about about 1.4degC rise in the "trigger"..

He's not a geologist....

 

[Abraham3]

Wanna bet?

 

[westwall]

Wanna bet?

Wanna bet what? That you, he, and it are socks? I have no doubt of that...not one bit.

 

[Abraham3]

The release of methane from the Arctic is in itself a contributor to global warming as a result of polar amplification. Recent observations in the Siberian arctic show increased rates of methane release from the Arctic seabed.[4] Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian arctic, was also recently observed to be releasing large amounts of methane, estimated at over 4 million tons – significantly above previous estimates.[11]
In the plot showing the global atmospheric methane concentration (the significant measure from the viewpoint of global warming and radiative forcing), however, the rate of the increase in atmospheric methane has been slowing until 2004, indicating that the contribution from Arctic release is currently not the dominant factor in the global picture.
Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[12] Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve.[13]
In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[14] identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one the most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of the risk of clathrate destabilization, alongside three other credible abrupt climate change scenarios.[15]

4. ^ a b c Shakhova, Natalia (2005). "The distribution of methane on the Siberian Arctic shelves: Implications for the marine methane cycle". Geophysical Research Letters 32 (9): L09601. Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3209601S. doi:10.1029/2005GL022751.

11. ^ Walter, Km; Zimov, Sa; Chanton, Jp; Verbyla, D; Chapin, Fs, 3Rd (Sep 2006). "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming". Nature 443 (7107): 71–5. Bibcode:2006Natur.443...71W. doi:10.1038/nature05040. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16957728.
12. ^ Shakhova N., Semiletov I., Salyuk A., Kosmach D., Bel'cheva N. (2007). "Methane release on the Arctic East Siberian shelf". Geophysical Research Abstracts 9: 01071.
13. ^ N. Shakhova, I. Semiletov, A. Salyuk, D. Kosmach (2008), Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates?, EGU General Assembly 2008, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 10, EGU2008-A-01526
14. ^ IMPACTS: On the Threshold of Abrupt Climate Changes, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory News Center, 17 September 2008
15. ^ CCSP, 2008: Abrupt Climate Change. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (Clark, P.U., A.J. Weaver (coordinating lead authors), E. Brook, E.R. Cook, T.L. Delworth, and K. Steffen (chapter lead authors)). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 459 pp.

 

[Abraham3]

Are you familiar with the Permian Extinction?

 

[westwall]

The release of methane from the Arctic is in itself a contributor to global warming as a result of polar amplification. Recent observations in the Siberian arctic show increased rates of methane release from the Arctic seabed.[4] Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian arctic, was also recently observed to be releasing large amounts of methane, estimated at over 4 million tons – significantly above previous estimates.[11]
In the plot showing the global atmospheric methane concentration (the significant measure from the viewpoint of global warming and radiative forcing), however, the rate of the increase in atmospheric methane has been slowing until 2004, indicating that the contribution from Arctic release is currently not the dominant factor in the global picture.
Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[12] Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve.[13]
In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[14] identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one the most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of the risk of clathrate destabilization, alongside three other credible abrupt climate change scenarios.[15]

4. ^ a b c Shakhova, Natalia (2005). "The distribution of methane on the Siberian Arctic shelves: Implications for the marine methane cycle". Geophysical Research Letters 32 (9): L09601. Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3209601S. doi:10.1029/2005GL022751.
5. ^ a b c Shakhova, Natalia; Semiletov, Igor (2007). "Methane release and coastal environment in the East Siberian Arctic shelf". Journal of Marine Systems 66 (1–4): 227–243. Bibcode:2007JMS....66..227S. doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2006.06.006
6. ^ Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001)
7. ^ N. E. Shakhova, I. P. Semiletov, A. N. Salyuk, N. N. Bel’cheva, and D. A. Kosmach, (2007). "Methane Anomalies in the Near-Water Atmospheric Layer above the Shelf of East Siberian Arctic Shelf". Doklady Earth Sciences 415 (5): 764–768. Bibcode:2007DokES.415..764S. doi:10.1134/S1028334X07050236.
8. ^ Torn, M.; Chapiniii, F. (1993). "Environmental and biotic controls over methane flux from Arctic tundra". Chemosphere 26: 357. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(93)90431-4. edit
9. ^ Whalen, S. C.; Reeburgh, W. S. (1990). "Consumption of atmospheric methane by tundra soils". Nature 346 (6280): 160. Bibcode:1990Natur.346..160W. doi:10.1038/346160a0. edit
10. ^ Kerr, R. A. (2010). "'Arctic Armageddon' Needs More Science, Less Hype". Science 329 (5992): 620–621. doi:10.1126/science.329.5992.620. PMID 20688993. edit: Transcript of related podcast "Science Podcast". Science 329 (5992): 697–691. 2010. doi:10.1126/science.329.5992.697-b. edit
11. ^ Walter, Km; Zimov, Sa; Chanton, Jp; Verbyla, D; Chapin, Fs, 3Rd (Sep 2006). "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming". Nature 443 (7107): 71–5. Bibcode:2006Natur.443...71W. doi:10.1038/nature05040. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16957728.
12. ^ Shakhova N., Semiletov I., Salyuk A., Kosmach D., Bel'cheva N. (2007). "Methane release on the Arctic East Siberian shelf". Geophysical Research Abstracts 9: 01071.
13. ^ N. Shakhova, I. Semiletov, A. Salyuk, D. Kosmach (2008), Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates?, EGU General Assembly 2008, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 10, EGU2008-A-01526
14. ^ IMPACTS: On the Threshold of Abrupt Climate Changes, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory News Center, 17 September 2008
15. ^ CCSP, 2008: Abrupt Climate Change. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (Clark, P.U., A.J. Weaver (coordinating lead authors), E. Brook, E.R. Cook, T.L. Delworth, and K. Steffen (chapter lead authors)). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 459 pp.

Cool, you posted a lot of studies that say not much of anything. I looked up 5 of them and they were all correlation equals causation nonsense. Poor excuse for scientists and you still haven't answered the question of when the methane first started being released.

 

[westwall]

Are you familiar with the Permian Extinction?

More than you.....Here are four possible causes for the Permian Extinction....Amazingly enough global warming isn't mentioned... Only in the fevered imaginings and tortured computer models can warmth be trotted out as a possible cause, the paleo record though says otherwise....


"Speculated Causes of the Permian Extinction
Although the cause of the Permian mass extinction remains a debate, numerous theories have been formulated to explain the events of the extinction. One of the most current theories for the mass extinction of the Permian is an agent that has been also held responsible for the Ordovician and Devonian crises, glaciation on Gondwana. A similar glaciation event in the Permian would likely produce mass extinction in the same manner as previous, that is, by a global widespread cooling and/or worldwide lowering of sea level.


The Formation of Pangea

Another theory which explains the mass extinctions of the Permian is the reduction of shallow continental shelves due to the formation of the super-continent Pangea. Such a reduction in oceanic continental shelves would result in ecological competition for space, perhaps acting as an agent for extinction. However, although this is a viable theory, the formation of Pangea and the ensuing destruction of the continental shelves occurred in the early and middle Permian, and mass extinction did not occur until the late Permian.


Glaciation

A third possible mechanism for the Permian extinction is rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations produced by concurrent glaciation events on the north and south poles. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones, glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred.


Volcanic Eruptions

The fourth and final suggestion that paleontologists have formulated credits the Permian mass extinction as a result of basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia. These volcanic eruptions were large and sent a quantity of sulphates into the atmosphere. Evidence in China supports that these volcanic eruptions may have been silica-rich, and thus explosive, a factor that would have produced large ash clouds around the world. The combination of sulphates in the atmosphere and the ejection of ash clouds may have lowered global climatic conditions. The age of the lava flows has also been dated to the interval in which the Permian mass extinction occurred."



Causes of the Permian Extinction

 

[flacaltenn]

Problem is, that as points go, if you're honest a do due dilligence, you get

"Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA"
by FishOutofWater Jun 14, 2013 7:34am PDT


"Some of the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations we've measured have been large, and we're seeing very different patterns from what models suggest," Miller said. "We saw large, regional-scale episodic bursts of higher-than-normal carbon dioxide and methane in interior Alaska and across the North Slope during the spring thaw, and they lasted until after the fall refreeze. To cite another example, in July 2012 we saw methane levels over swamps in the Innoko Wilderness that were 650 parts per billion higher than normal background levels. That's similar to what you might find in a large city."

Daily Kos :: Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA

Read critically for heaven's sake.. "... in INTERIOR Alaska... " "... swamps in the Innoko Wilderness.. " .. similiar to what you might find in a large city"...

AMAZING LEVELS? no not really. They were for the most part not talking about releasing methane from deeply buried calthrates shielded by shallow (almost frozen) water. THAT'S the doomsday theory you guys are hoping for.. Not finding piddly methane levels in the INTERIOR "swamps?" of Alaska..

I'm a Florida gator --- didn't realize the Arctic HAD swamps.. I learned sumtin today..

Stay out the Daily Kos.. They tend to exaggerate shit they don't understand..

 

[flacaltenn]

Wanna bet?

Abraham --- thought we lost you.. So you 2 ARE related?? Was not a random duo landing at USMB?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Historically? Methane levels have more than doubled, as has already been pointed out. And from a physics point of view, frozen methane tends to stay frozen unless it is warmed. And a recent report has indicated, even more so than previous papers, that the economic cost of methane release in the Arctic could be staggering.

Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy ? study

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf

Methane has a freezing point of -300 F, so you must be thinking of Methane on the other planets, right?

So that's your thought? Actual frozen methane? Ergo, can't be because obviously, no one has considered that methane freezing point is -300F?

It is a good question, not a good point.

"Methane and the risk of runaway global warming"

"The sediments and bottom water beneath the world’s shallow oceans and lakes contain vast amounts of greenhouse gases: methane hydrates and methane clathrates (see Figure 1). In particular methane is concentrated in Arctic permafrost where the accumulation of organic matter in frozen soils covers about 24% of northern hemisphere continents (see Figure 2a) and is estimated to contain more than 900 billion tons of carbon.

Methane, a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than CO2, is released from previously frozen soils when organic matter thaws and decomposes under anaerobic conditions (that is, without oxygen present)."


Arctic Methane » Arctic Methane | GeoengineeringWatch.org

Methane and the risk of runaway global warming » Methane and the risk of runaway global warming | GeoengineeringWatch.org

As a greenhouse gas, how much more potent than CO2 is H2O?