70
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 07:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yeah, problematic!
Gautam Naik, in the WSJ, page A6, 4/5/2010, wrote:
A large chunk of the Arctic seabed that sits on a methane reservoir has become unstable and is releasing some of the heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere, new research suggests. ... Methane can be 20 times more effective at trapping heat than can carbon dioxide.

Methane concentration in the atmosphere was as high as 0.7 parts per million in pre-industrial times, but reached 1.7 ppm in the 1980s. The level has been stable for the past 15 years, but no one knows exactly why.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 07:30 pm
@ican711nm,
A warning from the future!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 09:34 pm
Actually methane levels are rising (and the whole methane clathrate thing is not new--it's been suggested for years that rising temps from global warming will melt them in time, which will force temps up more).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/network-climate-change
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 03:58 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
You will notice that article is from last winter, not this one.
That has nothing to do with the first reference. Perhaps you shopuld read it ?

Quote:
In the words of the old bluegrass tune, It's goin' and it ain't comin' back.
Perhaps you missed it the first time..I will say it again ....
For how much of the Earth's history have we had Arctic ice ? Less than 10%. It has melted several times in the last Ice Age alone. Are you sure it is going and not coming back ?

0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:01 am
@TheCorrectResponse,
Quote:
And please don’t try to say the “slowing” is based on measurement, it is not, it is based on a model developed by JPL.
Modeling based on mechanics is far more sound than modelling based on chemistry. The earthquake model is far simpler with less variables. The modeling can be verified by the lunar lasar system.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:04 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
the deep ocean is warming
Oh please ! At least when you stuck to CO2 you could only be wrong, not silly.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:06 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
methane levels are rising
Where did this methane come from ? After 4.6 billion years, the earth hasnt faced this before ? Perhaps it came from outer space...
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 06:30 am
"from outer space", you're such a wit, Ionus, half, to be sure, though. No, this time around rising methane levels are coming mostly from us. Half life of methane in the atmosphere is only about eight years. It doesn't last long up there, so there has to be a proximate source timewise, which means human activity is significant. Agriculture, particularly rice paddy, in which flooding lets vegetable matter rot, deep coal mine emissions, natural gas pipeline leaks, and rising temperature in the Arctic which lets thousands of year old permafrost melt, which exposes the organic matter in the ex-permafrost to decomposition are all anthropogenic sources. Doesn't really matter what might have caused methane levels to fluctuate millions of years ago. It's us this time.

Quote:
Vast Amounts of Frozen Methane Escaping into Atmosphere from Leak in Arctic Seafloor By Laurie J. Schmidt
Posted 03.05.2010 at 10:29 am 14 Comments


Siberian Sea The sea surface above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is full of ice and bubbles. Sonar is the only way to detect the vast clouds of methane bubbles rising from the seafloor. courtesy of Igor Semiletov, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Large amounts of methane are leaking into the atmosphere from a section of seafloor under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, according to new study by an international research team. Methane is a greenhouse gas that lies frozen in sediments and permafrost -- frozen soil that remains below 0°C for several years -- in arctic continental shelves.

Permafrost was thought to act as a leak-proof barrier that sealed in the methane, but warming arctic temperatures are thawing the permafrost.

And the frozen methane is not only dissolving in the water -- it's escaping into the atmosphere. The researchers say that release of just a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger sudden climate warming.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf covers more than 2 million square kilometers of seafloor in the Arctic Ocean. Even prior to the new study, the region was known to be a significant source of methane -- releasing 7 teragrams a year (a teragram equals about 1.1 million tons).

Previous studies in Siberia focused on methane escaping from thawing permafrost on land, but the new study went beyond the coast to offshore areas. From 2003 -- 2008, the research team embarked on annual research cruises to sample seawater at various depths; they found that more than 80% of the deep water and more than half the surface water had methane levels that were eight times greater than that of normal seawater.

Besides storing large amounts of frozen methane, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is also very shallow, which means that methane gas doesn't have enough time to oxidize into carbon dioxide before reaching the surface. So, more methane reaches the atmosphere.

Methane release is one of the critical climate "feedbacks" that affect the entire planet's climate system as the result of a warming Arctic region. The volume of methane currently venting from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is about the same as the amount coming out of the entire planet's oceans combined, according to researcher Natalia Shakhova, who co-led the study. "The climatic consequences of this are hard to predict," she said.

The team plans to continue its studies, including drilling into the ocean floor to estimate the amount of methane stored there. A paper on the study appears in the March 5 issue of the journal Science.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 07:28 am
@MontereyJack,
Try to be honest...there has been far more methane in the past...what happened to all the methane when the dinosaurs were destroyed ? Why didnt the world end then ? The planet has self correcting systems for climate and weather. They have fluctuated in the past and they will again in the future. Greenies want to feel powerful and superior to their fellow man, so they always play the terrible awful humans card. The planet will get warmer, the mountain glaciers and arctic ice which is rarely there will disappear yet again. When the ice returns, what should we do if we are around ? Release CO2 and other greenhouse gases to save the planet ?
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 07:42 am
A lot of the self-correcting systems operate on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years. Humans, unfortunately, don't have that luxury. Doesn't help much if some system brings Co2 or methane down to present levels by fifty generations from now if rising levels screw things up ten or twenty or fifty years from now.

The problem also is that dinosaur populations weren't dependent on highly connected, highly capital-intensive industiral, transportation, and agricultural networks the way we are. Just to take one example, if rainfall patterns, snowmelt runoff and river and aquifer levels change drastically, which is one of the consequences of global warming (and already seems to be happening), that's going to cause political havoc and cost one hell of a lot to try to mitigate, and is likely to screw contries, LIKE THE US, which will see less rainfall on our most fertile cropland which is already suffering severe water stress.

spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 08:18 am
@Ionus,
Io --I once suggested, during a cold snap lasting long enough to prove to anybody's satisfaction that our Divine Designer was a double-dyed bastard with sadistic inclinations, as is befitting to our species, that we all ought to leave our engines running all night in the garage and nobody be allowed to turn them off in the car parks.

I even described how we, to do our bit as a non-motoring outfit, set fire to a bowser of diesel which we have pumped into a pit in the top meadow once a year.

They came back with some charts which I couldn't make moss nor sand of. I'd be surprised if they could.

It's a Bossy Boots party as you have so accurately divined. I divined it years ago when the "clean petrol" stuff got started and the snooty-boots types paid the extra so they could parade themselves as morally superior persons to us heaving and swaying masses. Lead came in and then CO2 and now "being a green person" is so morally superior that it has a right to tell everybody what to do and what to be ashamed of. It's a new type of clergy. Puritans, having given up on sex, are started on lesser forms of fun.

It must be, in the last analysis, due to a lack of a proper sense of humour.

And who is to say whether laughing at it is a worse method of saving the old rolling ball from it's inner contradictions than is taking it seriously.

Motorist are quite funny I find. They are a bit like babies in a pram. One who is being wheeled to the clinic for an injection, for example. The motorist is in coasting mode. In neutral. And both motorist and baby are provided with a range of distractions to help them pass this seemingly endless time. Most of the motorist's distraction kit is hi-tech, although not all of it, sugar lumps say, but that makes no difference to the case, and it is a case.

So the motorist is funny. If enough people laughed at them a lot they might become a bit furtive in their activities.

And you can bet that all the Bossy-Boots party members are motorists. And live in spacious accomodation at a respectable distance from their work station. And some of them never give a thought to our revolving rock when they drive into town to have the hem of their skirt taken up professionally.

So they are funny too. In fact Io, they are hilarious. I can reduce a greenie to tears in ten minutes. Just by laughing. And shaking my head from side to side with ironic pity.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 08:45 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The problem also is that dinosaur populations weren't dependent on highly connected, highly capital-intensive industiral, transportation, and agricultural networks the way we are. Just to take one example, if rainfall patterns, snowmelt runoff and river and aquifer levels change drastically, which is one of the consequences of global warming (and already seems to be happening), that's going to cause political havoc and cost one hell of a lot to try to mitigate, and is likely to screw contries, LIKE THE US, which will see less rainfall on our most fertile cropland which is already suffering severe water stress.


That's a clever paragraph. It gives the impression it has said something significant and plugs the Bossy-Boots party into that significance and it hasn't said anything about the debate. And it's fear-mongering as well.

But everybody already has a good idea that the consequences of global warming are bad. It is the cause of global warming that the debate is about and--

1- Whether our activities are causing it and, if they are, which is not agreed,
2-Whether the Bossy-Boots party is the best way to deal with it.

There are millions of garbage bins with spy gizmos inside to make the householder sort his rubbish out according to the regulations. And then one nosey-parker journalist found a council tipping the lot into one hole in the ground.

Bossy-Boots love creating junior bossy boots. They proliferate. Bossing down channels to junior bossing is quite exciting.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 09:22 am
No, Spendius, the debate is about both the causes and the effects, and the nay-sayers don't seem to have a very good grasp of the state of the world today. Nor do you, for that matter.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 11:50 am
@MontereyJack,
A "good grasp" being the type of grasp you have I suppose.

Once again you have said nothing. You don't even have a grasp of the language the poor hard-pressed taxpayer spent so much time and effort trying to give you.

You have no proof that the USA will become arid. Just asserting that it will if the 7 billion on the earth live in as mighty a style as you do is meaningless.

I could understand someone living in a low lying region of Bangladesh complaining about global warming but an American is ridiculous. When your carbon footprint comes somewhere near that of the average of the 7 billion perhaps you might not sound quite so silly. As it is you seem racist.

Wouldn't reducing the population of high polluters be the best way forward. With kind permission of media of course which bends every sinew to encourage growth in pollution.

Some grasp your's is.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 12:57 pm
@MontereyJack,
Yes, and if the sky falls in you (and Chicken Little) will be toast.

However, the sky is not falling in.

That the timespan of human life on earth might be limited in any of several ways has been an observable conclusion from the geological record for well over a century. Moreover, that has nothing to do with your exaggerated and morbid imaginings about global warming.
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:27 pm
The Average and Mean Annual Global Temperatures increased less than 1°C (1.8°F) in the last 100 years, and in the last ten years this temperature trend has either leveled off or decreased, while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has annually increased over the same period.

Human caused emissions of CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere have caused a less than a 5% increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 years.

Human caused emissions of CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere have caused a less than 0.05°C (0.09°F) increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 years.

spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:34 pm
@georgeob1,
If you're in the business of leading folk to safety George it is necessary to be morbid and to exaggerate. You're criticising a leopard for having spots.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:36 pm
@ican711nm,
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001
Solar Irradiance has been decreasing since 2001!



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
CO2 Trend 1958-2009
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:41 pm
@ican711nm,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:44 pm
@ican711nm,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
372
Chemist Dr. Daniel W. Miles, a former professor of physics who earned his PhD from the University of Utah, expressed skepticism of climate fears in 2007. "It is very apparent from a dozen or so peer-reviewed scientific articles that fluctuations in cosmic radiation have an important impact on climate change," Miles wrote in a November 8, 2007 essay titled "Scientific Consensus on Global Warming Not Overwhelming." "It is claimed that even if the carbon dioxide concentration in the air were doubled, its greenhouse effect would be canceled by a mere one percent rise in cloudiness. The reason is simply that greater cloudiness means a larger deflection of the solar radiation away from the surface of our planet," he wrote. "The more intense the influx of cosmic rays, the more clouds. Cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water vapor, where the ice crystals - from which clouds are created - are formed. The quantity of cosmic rays impacting the atmosphere is controlled by changes in the so-called solar wind - when the winds are stronger, they drive cosmic radiation away from the Earth, fewer clouds are formed and the Earth becomes warmer," Miles explained. (LINK)

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 03:49:01