Tim the plumber Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 What am I denying? I embrace the IPCC's figures. I think they have been stretched upwards as far as they can be but I still don't see that they show anything scary. For the purpose of moving the argument on let's use those. Do you have any sort of peer reviewed paper which suggests that we might have a run away warming due to methane?
John Cuthber Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 What am I denying? That there is a problem which we need to tackle.
Arete Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 I still don't see that they show anything scary. Here's some examples of a significant impact: 1) The largest watershed in California (the San Francisco Bay Delta) is predicted to have 20% less spring thaw runoff by 2090, and the remaining runoff is predicted to be more saline - with significant impacts to the state's environment, agriculture, industry and municipal water supplies. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GL014339/abstract 2) Doubling atmospheric CO2 is predicted to lead to a 10% increase in the average intensity of hurricanes. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-87-5-617 3) An increase in duration and frequency of severe drought conditions is predicted in Africa, Southern Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Southeast Asia and the Americas. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/full 4) Significant coral bleaching events are already being observed and predicted to get worse. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/418.full 5) Significant changes is the distributions of infectious disease are already being observed (e.g. malaria at a 40 year high in the US http://www.cdc.gov/features/malaria/) , and expected to increase. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440905001517 etc.
sculptor Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Hi guys: Call me sculptor, or call me rod The last chart in post 14 brought me here. The world is getting colder, while CO2 levels continue to rise. ......... Ok It seems that I have 11 more pages to read to get up to speed here. Has mis11 or mis31 from the lake el'gygytgyn data been discussed? Have the latest noaa charts been discussed? It seems that global cooling over the land masses has been accelerating by comparing the charts and trends of 2005-2013 and 2007-2013(year to date) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global (the links often default to different trend dates--so may need some treaking) Ok Hi again, and I'm off to read the foregoing
swansont Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Hi guys: Call me sculptor, or call me rod The last chart in post 14 brought me here. The world is getting colder, while CO2 levels continue to rise. The last chart is Air temperature vs Human CO2 Emissions 1850-2010 You seem to have dropped a minus sign, or are having difficulties in graph reading.
sculptor Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 swansont All I actually posted about this chart: was that it brought me here. The world is getting colder, while CO2 levels continue to rise. Was referencing materials and data not shown. I read the chart quite well, thank you for your concern. here's one from noaa: and a link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/ytd/3/2005-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2007&lasttrendyear=2013 did you want a CO2 graph as well?
hypervalent_iodine Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Sculptor, Both of those graphs show trends of increasing global temperatures in the former and higher than average temperatures in the latter (a period of 10 years is hardly enough to establish a trend, by the way). How exactly are you interpreting those graphs to arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is cooling?
sculptor Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) I declared no trend. Just a simple statement that the world was cooling. Which, as re the noaa and the ncdc it is. If you like trends, you can change them in myriad ways on the noaa site. As/re the chart posted for land and ocean, their trend claims -.o3 degrees per decade, and for the chart linked (you may have to reset the trend lines to 2007-2013 ---the link often goes to a default) for land only the trend per century reads -7.24 degrees C per century----or set the trend to decade, and it reads -.72 degrees per decade-------- Ok, it is silly to take a few years and extend the trend out over a decade or a century-----------take it as entertainment. Is/was it any less silly to take 3 decades where CO2 and temperature were rising simultaneously, declare causality, and extend that trend out over a century to 2100? Even cooling you will note that we are still above the 20th century average. IF the land trend over the past 7 years continues out for a decade, we will most likely be back to 20th century average within 3-4 years. Have you considered the effects of the quieting sun? Edited April 30, 2014 by sculptor
swansont Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I declared no trend. Just a simple statement that the world was cooling. Which, as re the noaa and the ncdc it is. Those two statements are inconsistent. If you claim cooling, you are declaring a trend. Which, statistically, is not a supported claim. At best you can say that surface temperatures have been flat, but surface temperatures are not the whole picture. Further , it might be best not to scatter the discussion over multiple threads; you brought this graph up in another discussion. Have you considered the effects of the quieting sun? It hasn't specifically entered the discussion here, but sure, bring it up. It only strengthens the AGW case and undermines your claim. You should be able to quantify the reduction in insolation and how much of a cooling effect that should have. Then you need to explain why the earth hasn't cooled as much as the reduction in insolation would require.
sculptor Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Those two statements are inconsistent. If you claim cooling, you are declaring a trend. Which, statistically, is not a supported claim. At best you can say that surface temperatures have been flat, but surface temperatures are not the whole picture. OK I may have inadvertently "declared a trend" by parroting the trends declared by the noaa and ncdc So, I'll grant that I declared a 10 year trend for land and ocean and a 7 year trend for land alone. period full stop This is a curious subject in that people's normal tendencies to see more than what is posted seems more eccentric and/or extreme in discussions of the material.
hypervalent_iodine Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 OK I may have inadvertently "declared a trend" by parroting the trends declared by the noaa and ncdc So, I'll grant that I declared a 10 year trend for land and ocean and a 7 year trend for land alone. period full stop This is a curious subject in that people's normal tendencies to see more than what is posted seems more eccentric and/or extreme in discussions of the material. So then will you concede that you are incorrect in your conclusions since the graphs absolutely do not support your claim? If you wish to expand on why you think that cooling is taking place, it may be best placed in a separate thread in speculations. As swansont noted, spreading your argument across multiple threads is probably not the best approach.
Blablabliam Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I agree that climate change is real- the proof is there. But I do not have any reason to believe that CO2 will cause large problems. The concept that man-made CO2 will make it nigh impossible to grow plants is inherently flawed. Consider the following: The majority of man-made carbon is from coal and oil. Also, coal and oil is simply plants and animals, 10,000 years down the road. Finally, plants and animals will store carbon within themselves, which is responsible for carbon dating. In addition, it is safe to assume that the earth is a closed system to matter, so the earth is not gaining or losing carbon to outside sources. Now, take those those things, and you can draw the conclusion that biological life was around when this CO2 was in the atmosphere. It is pretty easy to conclude that this CO2 will not cause a massive problem, as it is released slowly over the next 300 years.
swansont Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 The concept that man-made CO2 will make it nigh impossible to grow plants is inherently flawed. Is this an actual claim?
John Cuthber Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I agree that climate change is real- the proof is there. But I do not have any reason to believe that CO2 will cause large problems. The concept that man-made CO2 will make it nigh impossible to grow plants is inherently flawed. Consider the following: The majority of man-made carbon is from coal and oil. Also, coal and oil is simply plants and animals, 10,000 years down the road. Finally, plants and animals will store carbon within themselves, which is responsible for carbon dating. In addition, it is safe to assume that the earth is a closed system to matter, so the earth is not gaining or losing carbon to outside sources. Now, take those those things, and you can draw the conclusion that biological life was around when this CO2 was in the atmosphere. It is pretty easy to conclude that this CO2 will not cause a massive problem, as it is released slowly over the next 300 years. I can slowly draw back the string on a bow with just a couple of fingers and store up a lot of energy. If I use that bow to shoot you with you will be OK, because I only used a couple of fingers- and I could hardly hurt you with them. Or have you now realised that if you store something slowly and the release it quickly you can have an altogether different effect? So, unless you think it only took 300 years to create all the coal and oil, your "logic" is flawed.
Arete Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 The concept that man-made CO2 will make it nigh impossible to grow plants is inherently flawed. Good thing no one is claiming it then. In fact: "Recent climatic changes have enhanced plant growth in northern mid-latitudes and high latitudes." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5625/1560.short
overtone Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 In fact: "Recent climatic changes have enhanced plant growth in northern mid-latitudes and high latitudes." http://www.sciencema...5625/1560.short In the abstract they state that most of the increase in primary productivity has been in the equatorial rain forests, especially the Amazon. They claim a trend reduction in cloud cover over the Amazon, by 1999 (fifteen years ago) sufficient to account for a 2.5% increase in planetary primary productivity from the Amazon basin alone. That's one of the scariest factoids I've run across, right up there with the first measurements of permafrost methane release in Siberia, the discovery of glacial acceleration in Antarctica and Greenland, the opening of the Northwest Passage, and the graph of Lake Superior temperature readings the guy was taking off the ferry run between Grand Portage and Isle Royale in early September a few years ago: 20C at ten meters and above, all the way from the island to the north shore. He was a bit stunned, I think - kept checking his gear.
Tim the plumber Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 Methane Apocalypse, Everything Else Is A Distraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FnfygE5Lhw Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb Tim the plumber has always been a denialist, and has contributed to insufficient emissions reduction, which leads to the above scenario. AETM ELE. So please explain how a rising sea level will produce a lower pressure at the depth of the methane ice? Given that the temperature of the deep ocean is virtually impossible to change I would imagine that this increased pressure would increase the temperature point at which the methane ice will boil. Has basic physics changed so much recently? Or is it that you want to soak up all the catastrophist propaganda so much that your understanding of such basic science has taken a holiday? What science have I ever denied? Apart from the idea that a slight warming of the UK will cause 5000 extra deaths a year. I do deny that.
John Cuthber Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 "So please explain how a rising sea level will produce a lower pressure at the depth of the methane ice?"Red herring. Nobody said it would, what they say is that the temperature rises- you know- shrinking ice caps etc... "Given that the temperature of the deep ocean is virtually impossible to change" That's the second red herring because they are not talking about the deep ocean. Here's a map of where the hydrates are known to be.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_hydrates_1996.svg it shows deposits near the coasts- there's two reasons for that.Near the coast is the easy place to look but also the methane is produced by decomposition of organic matter washed from the land.so, no, basic physics hasn't changed. Nor has your behaviour. You still misrepresent stuff in order to try to support your viewpoint. So rather than "Or is it that you want to soak up all the catastrophist propaganda so much that your understanding of such basic science has taken a holiday?", perhaps a better question is; has your denialist point of view blinded you to the point where you don't listen to what's said and use bad science to defend a strawman attack. 2
Tim the plumber Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 How deep in the ocean are these gas hydrates? How do you expect the environment they are in to change if there is a 2 degree increase in surface temperature by 2100 and a 50cm sea level rise? Do you think that these changes will cause these gas hydrates to boil into the sea water and if so is that the top most of them or all of them? Once the methane has entered the water and dissolved how long do you think it will take for half of it to escape to the surface layers of the ocean and then into the atmosphere? Do you thin that there are existing sources of methane which are mixing into the oceans all the time?
Essay Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 How deep in the ocean.... Isn't the main point here regarding [Johnny Electriglide, on 11 Apr 2014 - 10:07 AM, said: "Methane Apocalypse, Everything Else Is A Distraction."] ...mostly about methane coming from melting permafrost, arctic lakes and arctic shorelines ...rather than the offshore clathrates?
Tim the plumber Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 OK, so it's not the methane hydrates under the ocean it's the permafrost.... If all the permafrost melts....... Why would all the permafrost melt? Won't it just be a little bit around the edge of the vast areas of permafrost? Perhaps? Has the IPCC claimed that this apocalypse is credible? No? Why not do you think? They have stretched all their other prophesies of doom as far as they will go. Perhaps you need to maintain a sense of perspective. The Earth has been warmer in the recent past (few thousand years). No disaster. This run away warming to a Venus has never happened before. There have been faster climate shifts than now. -2
Essay Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) If all the permafrost melts....... Why would all the permafrost melt? Won't it just be a little bit around the edge of the vast areas of permafrost? Perhaps? The International Permafrost Association says: "Most of the permafrost existing today formed during cold glacial periods, and has persisted through warmer interglacial periods, including the Holocene (last 10,000 years). Some relatively shallow permafrost (30 to 70 meters) formed during the second part of the Holocene (last 6,000 years) and some during the Little Ice Age (from 400 to 150 years ago)." It's taken several millions of years to build up those reservoirs of permafrost. "By the end of this century, without a reduction in emissions, atmospheric CO2 is projected to increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years." -National Research Council, 2011 Thirty million years worth of climate change!? Hey, that is before any permafrost existed; that is, since the demise of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals and primates and even the Atlantic Ocean. === But as you say, it'll just be melting around the edges ...at first; but then accelerating, and continuing for centuries to come. ~ Edited May 7, 2014 by Essay
Arete Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Won't it just be a little bit around the edge of the vast areas of permafrost? Perhaps? "the high warming scenario will degrade 9–15% of the top 3 metres of permafrost by 2040, increasing to 47–61% by 2100 and 67–79% by 2300 (these ranges are the 95% confidence intervals around the group's mean estimate). " http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/480032a.html It would be extremely beneficial to discussion if you could substantiate the many assertions you are making. Edited May 7, 2014 by Arete 1
Recommended Posts