Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[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.

And whether or not it had anything to do with the Permian-Triassic Extinction, dropping 50 GTons of methane into the atmosphere 'overnight' is something we really, really don't want to see.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Pure methane has a freezing point of -295.6°F, to be exact. But the methane locked up in the permafrost is not pure methane. It is called methane clathrate, which is methane hydrate - (CH4)8(H2O)46 - it begins to melt at 28.13°F. So it can only remain in the permafrost as long as the temperature remains below 28.13°F. Once the permafrost stars melting, it releases the methane from the clathrate.

 

[itfitzme]

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 be that I am a geologist. Abe and I know one another, and have for a long time. Come one grasshopper, take the bet.

Okay, then what kind of rock is this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Explain this....

Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent

 

[orogenicman]

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??

Which is insignificant compared to the over 1800 ppm of methane in the atmosphere, and easily calibrated for. Next.

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..

Perhaps on some other planet in the solar system. Not on this one:

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"..

That could well happen too. We can't control earthquakes. We certainly can control our own emissions.

 

[itfitzme]

Explain this....

Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent

Its been picked up by then oceans. When all factors are accounted for, the adjusted global warming looks like this

There is a full treatment posted on one of the threads.

 

[orogenicman]

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.....

I have addressed the question. That you cannot accept it is your problem, not mine. the graph is not meaningless, so to say it is without backing up your claim, well, that's just dumb. Methane outgases in plenty of places where it exists. There are methane seeps even in the gulf of Mexico. The problem is that there are over 50 billion tons of methane locked up in the Siberian permafrost. it has a melting point of just over 29 degrees F. The permafrost is already melting now, and is starting to release that methane. And it will only get worse as global warming advances and the methane adds to the greenhouse effect.

 

[flacaltenn]

What's the RATE?

Is it time to tell the grade-schoolers that their planet is gonna blow up if they don't get their parents to use WWF shopping bags??

I'm having doubts about trusting your eyeballs to measure rates.. Prefer the actual numbers above.. As you can see --- current GLOBAL rates of CH4 conc. are only about what they were in the mid-90s..

Did ya figure out the dishonesty in that abstract yet??? Boy I'm glad you helped point that out.. I've been correcting bogus pix of the North Pole and reposting stuff all over for youse guys.. Being a skeptic is a hard life..

Also note Mr. Geologist.. Your Mauna Loa chart is about 15 or 20ppm ABOVE the global average..

** and please don't tell me that 15ppm is "insignificant".. That's 10 times the anomalies they are reading in some of the permafrost studies..

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Ahem:

 

[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.

Tellingly there is NO massive plume in the Arctic.

Ahem:

Yack ! THat's scary.. What's the projected temp. anomaly for 2100?

Did ya get the dishonesty in that abstract yet??

 

[orogenicman]

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 be that I am a geologist. Abe and I know one another, and have for a long time. Come one grasshopper, take the bet.

Okay, then what kind of rock is this?

A sex stone, of course.

 

[orogenicman]

Explain this....

Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent

Explain what? You don't understand the words they wrote on the page?

 

[orogenicman]

What's the RATE?

Is it time to tell the grade-schoolers that their planet is gonna blow up if they don't get their parents to use WWF shopping bags??

I'm having doubts about trusting your eyeballs to measure rates.. Prefer the actual numbers above.. As you can see --- current GLOBAL rates of CH4 conc. are only about what they were in the mid-90s..

Did ya figure out the dishonesty in that abstract yet??? Boy I'm glad you helped point that out.. I've been correcting bogus pix of the North Pole and reposting stuff all over for youse guys.. Being a skeptic is a hard life..

Also note Mr. Geologist.. Your Mauna Loa chart is about 15 or 20ppm ABOVE the global average..

** and please don't tell me that 15ppm is "insignificant".. That's 10 times the anomalies they are reading in some of the permafrost studies..

Dude, you take the reading on Mauna Loa from the sensor, and deduct the 15 ppm, and come up with a calibrated reading. This is freshman chemistry, for Pete's sake. As for the rates, they were increasing in the 1990s, so they are still increasing, and not only that, since Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long, the fact that they have reached such high levels with no sign of let up is a very bad sign.

 

[orogenicman]

Tellingly there is NO massive plume in the Arctic.

Ahem:

Yack ! THat's scary.. What's the projected temp. anomaly for 2100?

Did ya get the dishonesty in that abstract yet??

I certainly get it from you willfully ignoring the facts.

 

[itfitzme]

Explain this....

Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent

Deep ocean, right where is was expected.

Same as your car keys, the last place they looked. Happens all the time.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms | ThinkProgress

Has Trenberth found the ?missing? heat? | Climate Etc.

 

[flacaltenn]

What's the RATE?

Is it time to tell the grade-schoolers that their planet is gonna blow up if they don't get their parents to use WWF shopping bags??

I'm having doubts about trusting your eyeballs to measure rates.. Prefer the actual numbers above.. As you can see --- current GLOBAL rates of CH4 conc. are only about what they were in the mid-90s..

Did ya figure out the dishonesty in that abstract yet??? Boy I'm glad you helped point that out.. I've been correcting bogus pix of the North Pole and reposting stuff all over for youse guys.. Being a skeptic is a hard life..

Also note Mr. Geologist.. Your Mauna Loa chart is about 15 or 20ppm ABOVE the global average..

** and please don't tell me that 15ppm is "insignificant".. That's 10 times the anomalies they are reading in some of the permafrost studies..

Dude, you take the reading on Mauna Loa from the sensor, and deduct the 15 ppm, and come up with a calibrated reading. This is freshman chemistry, for Pete's sake. As for the rates, they were increasing in the 1990s, so they are still increasing, and not only that, since Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long, the fact that they have reached such high levels with no sign of let up is a very bad sign.

I was hoping a geologist would recognize that putting a methane sensor on a mountain with 15 or more ACTIVE fissure volcanoes would require more than a simple "fixed" baseline deduction. Especially when the staff has to LEAVE the facility when the big eruptions happen.

Oh well -- just do the freshman Chem thing.. It's all climate science anyway aint' it?

 

[IanC]

A while back I posted up the projected methane rise that is being used in the GCMs. It is wildly higher than the measured rates. This is yet another source of error in the exaggerated claims for increased future temps.

 

[orogenicman]

What's the RATE?

Is it time to tell the grade-schoolers that their planet is gonna blow up if they don't get their parents to use WWF shopping bags??

I'm having doubts about trusting your eyeballs to measure rates.. Prefer the actual numbers above.. As you can see --- current GLOBAL rates of CH4 conc. are only about what they were in the mid-90s..

Did ya figure out the dishonesty in that abstract yet??? Boy I'm glad you helped point that out.. I've been correcting bogus pix of the North Pole and reposting stuff all over for youse guys.. Being a skeptic is a hard life..

Also note Mr. Geologist.. Your Mauna Loa chart is about 15 or 20ppm ABOVE the global average..

** and please don't tell me that 15ppm is "insignificant".. That's 10 times the anomalies they are reading in some of the permafrost studies..

Dude, you take the reading on Mauna Loa from the sensor, and deduct the 15 ppm, and come up with a calibrated reading. This is freshman chemistry, for Pete's sake. As for the rates, they were increasing in the 1990s, so they are still increasing, and not only that, since Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long, the fact that they have reached such high levels with no sign of let up is a very bad sign.

I was hoping a geologist would recognize that putting a methane sensor on a mountain with 15 or more ACTIVE fissure volcanoes would require more than a simple "fixed" baseline deduction. Especially when the staff has to LEAVE the facility when the big eruptions happen.

Oh well -- just do the freshman Chem thing.. It's all climate science anyway aint' it?

Mauna Loa is dormant, and has been since a tiny aa eruption occurred down on a flack vent in 1984. The miniscule amount of methane it is emitting at the very high, very windy summit, is quite manageable, and monitored daily. To be honest, the only ones I've ever heard complaining about using a location with the some of the most pristine air on the planet are the rare deniers like you. But lets talk about the measurements for a moment. Even if they weren't accounting for the small amount of native methane at that location, it would only add 0.8333333333333333 % error to the measurements, and that could simply be reads as +_ this tiny amount. We are talking about 1800ppm, versus 15ppm. It is two orders of magnitude of difference, and so quite insignificant. And yet they do account for it in their measurements. It isn't an issue. AT ALL.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh good -- THey found it..

Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----

we can fabricate the temperature of the Pacific in 1935 at 700m depths from sea snail rings or some other reliable thermometer.

Pheeewww.. Am I relieved...

Yeah, right, its all a big conspiracy. COO COO

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh good -- THey found it..

Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----

we can fabricate the temperature of the Pacific in 1935 at 700m depths from sea snail rings or some other reliable thermometer.

Pheeewww.. Am I relieved...

Still rejecting all of the science and clinging to your myths like a good little obedient denier cult retard, I see. Nice knee-jerk reaction there, fecalton.

I've had months to consider this dodgey assertion your klan is making..

Thimk for a minute here -- even if it hurts..

Where does the deep ocean temp record come from for 1900 to maybe 1940? How much of the world's oceans did it cover? How much is proxies and how much is an actual thermometer?

So many questions -- so little answers...

Uhh, I'm pretty sure all of that could be found in the research paper in which this data is presented. As the unbiased scientist I'm sure you would be more than interested to look up that information yourself, and then share it with us.

Thanks.