Methane emissions from fossil fuels vastly underestimated.

Piecing together clues from many fields, Dr. Schoch has concluded that the triggering factor was an eruption from our Sun.

You can't make your point without arranging things out of context ?

It appears these "many fields" doesn't include solar physics ... sub-dwarf main sequence stars have not been observed to do this ...

What you're talking about is usually called the Late Bronze Age collapse ... over a thousand years after the conservative dating of the Sphinx ... try again ... or drop better acid ...
 
It appears these "many fields" doesn't include solar physics ... sub-dwarf main sequence stars have not been observed to do this ...

What you're talking about is usually called the Late Bronze Age collapse ... over a thousand years after the conservative dating of the Sphinx ... try again ... or drop better acid ...

Maybe some tree frog poison, but we'll have to jump over to the Amazon.
https://futurism.com/was-an-advanced-civilization-wiped-out-by-a-comet-12000-years-ago

https://time.com/5218270/amazonian-civilization-discovered-mato-grosso/
 
Frog_1500-57c72b425f9b5829f46c15e3.jpg
 
Oh ... there's a link ... talk about a click-bait headline ...

Over a 20-year time frame, methane traps 86 times as much heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

NOAA gives this as 25 times in the cite a few posts above ... which do we believe? ... well, the folks that say 86 times haven't a clue where the methane's coming from ...

You posted the link ... did you read it with a critical eye? ... you kinda own this claim now, care to defend why the atmospheric scientists at NOAA are so crazy batshit wrong? ... and the floor is open, I have no idea what the true value is ... convince me it's 86 times ... if the math works, I'll believe you ...
You are a rare person who notice this, most thinks it is a big deal, when it is irrelevant since CH4 doesn't diddly squat for warm forcing effect, as there is so little of it and so little IR absorption to drive it past negligible.
 
Another new study, however, offers some measure of hope, citing modeling that shows that reducing anthropogenic methane emissions can still offset the “natural” leakage that the thawing Arctic will produce under warmer temperatures. If true, it would suggest that a disastrous feedback loop—in which human-driven greenhouse gas emissions melt the planet’s permafrost, turning it from a vast carbon storage unit into a huge new source of planet-warming methane, driving further warming—might yet be averted. But scientists also say the time available for avoiding that runaway-train scenario is quickly disappearing.

First line in the article: "Levels of heat-trapping methane are rising faster than climate experts anticipated, triggering intense debate about why it's happening."

CH4 and CO2, doesn't trap anything, it absorbs and emit IR in near instant speed. Always a sign that such an article with that crap will be shallow as this one clearly is, thus not credible. CH4 is an insignificant IR absorber, promote negligible warm forcing, to the point that it is irrelevant!

Your article like so many fails to point out the obvious, that Permafrost southern line used to somewhere in the middle part of America and Europe. This means we have lost around 80-90% of the permafrost by area since it moved north 20,000 years ago. They concentrate on recent history only, ignore the rest of the Interglacial period.

Yet ZERO evidence that all that supposed massive Methane release was a problem to the climate.
 
Last edited:
No proof to the contrary either.

Methane may also have been the cause of rapid warming events deep in Earth’s history, millions of years ago. Under high pressure, like the pressures found deep at the bottom of the ocean, methane solidifies into a slush-like material called methane hydrate. Vast amounts of methane are “frozen” in place at the bottom of the sea in this chemical state, though the exact amounts and locations are still being studied. The hydrates are stable unless something comes along to disturb them, like a plume of warm water.

A massive warming event that occurred about 55 million years ago may have been kicked off by destabilized hydrates, some scientists think. Methane percolated up from the seafloor into the atmosphere, flooding it with the heat-trapping gas and forcing the planet to warm drastically and quickly.

 
No proof to the contrary either.

Methane may also have been the cause of rapid warming events deep in Earth’s history, millions of years ago. Under high pressure, like the pressures found deep at the bottom of the ocean, methane solidifies into a slush-like material called methane hydrate. Vast amounts of methane are “frozen” in place at the bottom of the sea in this chemical state, though the exact amounts and locations are still being studied. The hydrates are stable unless something comes along to disturb them, like a plume of warm water.

A massive warming event that occurred about 55 million years ago may have been kicked off by destabilized hydrates, some scientists think. Methane percolated up from the seafloor into the atmosphere, flooding it with the heat-trapping gas and forcing the planet to warm drastically and quickly.



The article is speculative bullshit, have seen it before, they don't want you to know that CH4 even at high levels is an insignificant warm forcer., they mention that it is a "potent greenhouse gas" at 28 times CO2 ( we have seen 25, 28, and 80 times numbers declared in this thread) but NEVER show it mathematically, it is propaganda nothing more.

Don't be so easily snookered by it.
 
The article is speculative bullshit, have seen it before, they don't want you to know that CH4 even at high levels is an insignificant warm forcer., they mention that it is a "potent greenhouse gas" at 28 times CO2 ( we have seen 25, 28, and 80 times numbers) but NEVER show it mathematically
Because it's an article, not a research paper on methane forcing. In what the rest of us call "reality", it's very significant. But we are all looking forward to your published research, Cletus.
 
The article is speculative bullshit, have seen it before, they don't want you to know that CH4 even at high levels is an insignificant warm forcer., they mention that it is a "potent greenhouse gas" at 28 times CO2 ( we have seen 25, 28, and 80 times numbers) but NEVER show it mathematically
Because it's an article, not a research paper on methane forcing. In what the rest of us call "reality", it's very significant. But we are all looking forward to your published research, Cletus.
I see that you offered NOTHING at all, clodus.

Try translating this pile of crap:

"Each of those puffs coming out of a cow’s plumbing, added together, can have a big effect on climate because methane is a potent greenhouse gas—about 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the Earth, on a 100-year timescale, and more than 80 times more powerful over 20 years."

LINK

:auiqs.jpg:
=================

Now lets see if you guys can understand this:

Cross sections for CO2 in cm^2 per molecule
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm

Cross sections for CH4 in cm^2 per molecule
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/ch4pnnlimagesmicrons.htm

Cross sections for H2) in cm^2 per molecule
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/h2opnnlimagesmicrons.htm

For well mixed atmospheric gas constituents, the fraction of beam absorption per meter of gas column by each type of molecule at a given wavelength will be proportional to the molecule’s cross-section at that wavelength and also proportional to the number of molecules of that type. These have to be summed over the earth surface thermal emission bands in order to see which molecules absorb the most energy. Water vapor, because of its great numbers of molecules is dominant, but there is significant absorption by both CO2. The low numbers of CH4 result in much less energy absorbed by it. It has a fair sized cross-section but very low numbers.

:stir:
 
Last edited:
No proof to the contrary either.

Methane may also have been the cause of rapid warming events deep in Earth’s history, millions of years ago. Under high pressure, like the pressures found deep at the bottom of the ocean, methane solidifies into a slush-like material called methane hydrate. Vast amounts of methane are “frozen” in place at the bottom of the sea in this chemical state, though the exact amounts and locations are still being studied. The hydrates are stable unless something comes along to disturb them, like a plume of warm water.

A massive warming event that occurred about 55 million years ago may have been kicked off by destabilized hydrates, some scientists think. Methane percolated up from the seafloor into the atmosphere, flooding it with the heat-trapping gas and forcing the planet to warm drastically and quickly.



No proof to the contrary either.

Ah ... you make an outrageous claim and then demand we disprove you ... that's not how science works ... your claim, your burden of proof ... go back to this "86 times" you're basing your claim on and explain why published literature gives this as 25 times ... yes, in this light it is fair to question all your data, what else have you got wrong? ...

... like a plume of warm water.

That's rich ... warm water is more buoyant, so it stays at the surface ... you'll need a force to drive that warm water down to the methane hydrates ... then we have the thermodynamic complexities of change-of-state and that nasty conservation of energy law we have to abide by ...

You can use the word "may" all you like ... but without a shred of physical evidence ... it's just another weasel word ...

Methane percolates up the ocean water column all the time, and then quickly oxidizes in the atmosphere ... poof ... all gone ... end of that fairy tale ... stick to leakage from the natural gas lines, you're not violating the laws of nature so much that way ...
 
Cattle farts? Volcanoes? Bogs and swamps? Lets stamp out these methane sources before Professor Howarth loses his grants.
 

Forum List

Back
Top