Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

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.

That's REALLY interesting.. Because I was cruising thru this list of cites JUST LAST NIGHT and read the actual abstract from Shakova (2008).. It's here below..
Which paper was the quote from? Because they left out a KEY PIECE OF INFORMATION..

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf\

Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East
Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage
from shallow shelf hydrates?

N. Shakhova (1,2), I. Semiletov (1,2), A. Salyuk (2), D. Kosmach (2)
(1) International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
([email protected]) (2) V.I. Il’ichov Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far-eastern Branch
of Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia

Methane release from continental margins is widespread and contributes methane to
the biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere, thus making up an important part of
the global carbon cycle. The contribution of arctic shallow seabed sediments to the
global carbon budget and, particularly, to the marine methane budget, has received
little attention because the area of these sediments is small in extent and because,
due to low temperatures that characterize these sediments, they are not considered
conducive to methanogenesis. In addition, in the case of the East Siberian Shelf (ESS),
shallow sediments have not been considered a methane source to the hydrosphere
or atmosphere because seabed permafrost (defined as sediments with a 2-year mean
temperature below 0°C), which is considered to underlay most of the ESS, acts as
an impermeable lid, preventing methane escape. However, our recent data showed
extreme methane supersaturation of surface water, implying high sea-to-air fluxes.

The total value of ESS carbon pool is, thus, not less than 1,400 Gt of carbon.
Since the area of geological disjunctives (fault zones, tectonically and seismically active areas) within the Siberian Arctic shelf composes not less than 1-2% of the total area and area of open taliks (area of melt through permafrost), acting as a pathway for methane escape within the Siberian Arctic shelf reaches up to 5-10% of the total area, we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause 12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

Ain't that cool? THIS is why I am a skeptic... Change the entire MEANING of a finding. Leave out a KEY assertion.. You are supporting dishonest science.. You just demonstrated it in action...

Once you give us the cite for that particular abstract -- us skeptics will thank you for contributing to our cause..


Nothing personal -- you are just too trusting...

 

[Abraham3]

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.

Bullshit. You did not have enough time to look them up much less read them.

4. ^ Geophysical Research Letters
11. ^ Nature
12. ^ Geophysical Research Abstracts
13. ^ Geophysical Research Abstracts
14. ^ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory News Center
15. ^ U.S. Geological Survey

And, pray tell, when was the last time you were published in any of these?

Poor excuse for scientists and you still haven't answered the question of when the methane first started being released.

That's not a question you've asked me. If you're asking about Arctic methane, it's been released constantly for millions of years. It's the rate that's changed - and that now threatens to go through the roof.

 

[Abraham3]

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....

Wikipedia on the 'Clathrate Gun'
However, there is stronger evidence that runaway methane clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species became extinct 251 million years ago.[5]

5. ^ "The Day The Earth Nearly Died". Horizon. 2002. BBC.

Wikipedia on the Permian-Triassic Extinction
Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[5][9][10][11] There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was probably due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, coal/gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps,[12] and sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

5. ^ a b c d e f Sahney S and Benton M.J (2008). "Recovery from the most profound mass extinction of all time" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological 275 (1636): 759–765. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1370. PMC 2596898. PMID 18198148.
9. ^ a b c d e f Jin YG, Wang Y, Wang W, Shang QH, Cao CQ, Erwin DH (2000). "Pattern of Marine Mass Extinction Near the Permian–Triassic Boundary in South China". Science 289 (5478): 432–436. Bibcode:2000Sci...289..432J. doi:10.1126/science.289.5478.432. PMID 10903200.
10. ^ Yin H, Zhang K, Tong J, Yang Z, Wu S. "The Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) of the Permian-Triassic Boundary". Episodes 24 (2). pp. 102–114.
11. ^ Yin HF, Sweets WC, Yang ZY, Dickins JM (1992). "Permo-Triassic events in the eastern Tethys–an overview". In Sweet WC. Permo-Triassic events in the eastern Tethys: stratigraphy, classification, and relations with the western Tethys. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–7. ISBN 0-521-54573-0.
12. ^ Darcy E. Ogdena and Norman H. Sleep (2011). "Explosive eruption of coal and basalt and the end-Permian mass extinction.". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109...59O. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118675109.

 

[flacaltenn]

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....

Wikipedia on the Clathrate Gun
However, there is stronger evidence that runaway methane clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species became extinct 251 million years ago.[5]

Wikipedia on the Permian-Triassic Extinction
Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[5][9][10][11] There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was probably due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, coal/gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps,[12] and sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

One in ten chance of guessing aint' bad.. Who's the idiot that has the evidence of methane calthrate release --- and why no cite for that one???

 

[itfitzme]

By their reasoning, we shouldn't clean our hands after using the grocery cart at the store during flu season because monkeys get ebola virus in the wild.

 

[Abraham3]

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

Orogenicman and I both came from a board that has recently closed down. Like you and WestWall and Crusader Frank. All on the same board with similar opinions.

 

[Abraham3]

One in ten chance of guessing aint' bad.. Who's the idiot that has the evidence of methane calthrate release --- and why no cite for that one???

Probably someone with a real PhD. And the lack of cite is my fault. I'm working on a wee tiny netbook whose fonts are too small for my aging vision. Standby.

From PNAS. Have you been published in PNAS?

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Orogenicman and I both came from a board that has recently closed down. Like you and WestWall and Crusader Frank. All on the same board with similar opinions.

Well welcome. You now have temporary refugee status..

Losing your board is one of those disasters in life. My sympathies..

 

[Abraham3]

By their reasoning, we shouldn't clean our hands after using the grocery cart at the store during flu season because monkeys get ebola virus in the wild.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Abraham3]

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

Orogenicman and I both came from a board that has recently closed down. Like you and WestWall and Crusader Frank. All on the same board with similar opinions.

Well welcome. You now have temporary refugee status..

Losing your board is one of those disasters in life. My sympathies..

Pardon the snarkiness. Thought I was talking to Westwall

 

[Abraham3]

So, FlaCaLTenn,

Is everyone who publishes PoVs that differ from yours "guessing"?

 

[Abraham3]

However, our recent data showed
extreme methane supersaturation of surface water, implying high sea-to-air fluxes.

The total value of ESS carbon pool is, thus, not less than 1,400 Gt of carbon.
Since the area of geological disjunctives (fault zones, tectonically and seismically active areas) within the Siberian Arctic shelf composes not less than 1-2% of the total area and area of open taliks (area of melt through permafrost), acting as a pathway for methane escape within the Siberian Arctic shelf reaches up to 5-10% of the total area, we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause 12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

Ain't that cool? THIS is why I am a skeptic... Change the entire MEANING of a finding. Leave out a KEY assertion.. You are supporting dishonest science.. You just demonstrated it in action...

Once you give us the cite for that particular abstract -- us skeptics will thank you for contributing to our cause..


Nothing personal -- you are just too trusting...

What are you talking about?!? Shakova says precisely what the Wikipedia article says: 50 GTons is at risk of immediate release through taliks and would cause a 12-fold increase to atmospheric methane levels.

Now WHY is it you think you should be a skeptic?

 

[itfitzme]

By their reasoning, we shouldn't clean our hands after using the grocery cart at the store during flu season because monkeys get ebola virus in the wild.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

By their reasoning, because the climate has change naturally in the long history of the Earth, then we shouldn't concern ourslelves with the fact that humans are now changing it

 

[Abraham3]

Uhh.. Ohhhhh kay.

I'm not sure it's possible to make a analogy to an utterly faulty inference

 

[itfitzme]

The "correlation doesn't equal causation" nonsense is their fall back position. It demonstrates a complete lack of fundamental scientific understanding. Correlation always equals causation when the two are causal. If they were not causal, there would be no correlation. The only time correlation isn't causal is when there is some other cause, when you've taken all the causal factors and run them through a multivariate regression, you know exactly what the coefficients are.

The problem that the deniers have is that the correlation does prove causality unless they can demonstrate otherwise. And they can't because all causal factors have been accounted for. All non causal factors have been accounted for.

They live in this wierd fantacy land where there is some sort of magic proof of causality that exists independent of correlation. It doesn't exist.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, FlaCaLTenn,

Is everyone who publishes PoVs that differ from yours "guessing"?

No.. Of course not silly.. It's the rabid warmers who back up their assertions by quoting a text that gives TEN reasons something happened, when THEIR theory is just one of the ten possibilities.. That's the odds of guessing in that case... Also a good guess we can take away the high probability that science just doesn't know the answer.

 

[Abraham3]

No.. Of course not silly.. It's the rabid warmers who back up their assertions by quoting a text that gives TEN reasons something happened, when THEIR theory is just one of the ten possibilities.. That's the odds of guessing in that case... Also a good guess we can take away the high probability that science just doesn't know the answer.

Wikipedia on Permian Extinction
There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was probably due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include
1) large or multiple bolide impact events,
2) increased volcanism,
3) coal/gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps
4) sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor

Not one in ten, one in four.

 

[flacaltenn]

However, our recent data showed
extreme methane supersaturation of surface water, implying high sea-to-air fluxes.

The total value of ESS carbon pool is, thus, not less than 1,400 Gt of carbon.
Since the area of geological disjunctives (fault zones, tectonically and seismically active areas) within the Siberian Arctic shelf composes not less than 1-2% of the total area and area of open taliks (area of melt through permafrost), acting as a pathway for methane escape within the Siberian Arctic shelf reaches up to 5-10% of the total area, we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause 12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

Ain't that cool? THIS is why I am a skeptic... Change the entire MEANING of a finding. Leave out a KEY assertion.. You are supporting dishonest science.. You just demonstrated it in action...

Once you give us the cite for that particular abstract -- us skeptics will thank you for contributing to our cause..


Nothing personal -- you are just too trusting...

What are you talking about?!? Shakova says precisely what the Wikipedia article says: 50 GTons is at risk of immediate release through taliks and would cause a 12-fold increase to atmospheric methane levels.

Now WHY is it you think you should be a skeptic?

It's critical for you to understand WHY this is an example of the wholesale DISHONESTY of the current climate science RACKET -- and by extension why I am and you should be skeptical..

1) You posted an abstract from someone (still haven't told which one) that quoted Sharakova 2008.

2) I READ the abstract from Sharakova 2008 last night and was amazed that they couched the release of that 50GTons by citing SEIMIC hazards further opening seeps in that area and NOT melting of the permafrost as a likely scenario..

3) YOUR bastards quoted Sharakova about the 50GT release potential --- but INTENTIONALLY left out the qualifying language for the LIKELY release of that material.. Giving the impression that Sharakova et al considered the release a consequence of the (not so) humongeous 1degC we are experiencing.. A blatant misrepresentation of the work.
I've bolded the censored qualifying phrase above.

Go back and compare the DERIVATIVE work to what was actually stated. And please supply the cite for that abstract.. I have a collection of poor scientific practice from AGW "scientists" that needs to be constantly fed..

That's why I'm a skeptic.. This shoddy shit is based on fraud and misrepresentation. MOUNTAINS of it...

 

[flacaltenn]

No.. Of course not silly.. It's the rabid warmers who back up their assertions by quoting a text that gives TEN reasons something happened, when THEIR theory is just one of the ten possibilities.. That's the odds of guessing in that case... Also a good guess we can take away the high probability that science just doesn't know the answer.

Wikipedia on Permian Extinction
Suggested mechanisms for the latter include
1) large or multiple bolide impact events,
2) increased volcanism,
3) coal/gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps
4) sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor

Not one in ten, one in four. And not one in the list is cooling.

you forgot 5) 6) 7) and 8)

,,,,,,, gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

OK --- I miscounted.. It's 1 in 8.. But with that many possibilities, I'm SURE there are a couple others lurking out there..

 

[orogenicman]

Wanna bet?

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

He is asking you if you want to bet that I am a geologist. Abe and I know one another, and have for a long time. Come one grasshopper, take the bet.