Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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...
You denier cultists are so funny. You admit your almost complete ignorance on this topic but you're still absolutely sure that you understand it better than the professional scientists who've been studying this subject for decades.
Wanna bet?
Abraham --- thought we lost you.. So you 2 ARE related?? Was not a random duo landing at USMB?
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.
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.
Which model are you talking about?So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling?
Oceans are huge heatsinks. To have that effect SUDDENLY and CONVIENIENTLY kick in UNANTICIPATED and UNANNOUNCED (in a short number of years) just illustrates how this AGW sideshow isn't even out of "concept phase" yet..
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.
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.
REALLY? The current research paper in the OP relies on freaking diving walruses !! No lie Slim it's in there. That's because they didn't like the data from the 10,000 deployed deep sea buoys used to actually measure temp. And their results are MODELED with sparse sampling as inputs.
So let's go back to the 1900s.. Tell me HOW you measure the temp. at enough points SIMULTANEOUSLY (or close to simult) to create a GLOBAL CONTINUOUS record as a function of depth..
How far did THIS paper go back in time?
Think the records are THAT GOOD? What proxies would you use to get a depth vs temp. chart.. Truly OopyDoo --- if you KNOW --- please tell me..
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): 759765. 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 PermianTriassic Boundary in South China". Science 289 (5478): 432436. 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. 102114.
11. ^ Yin HF, Sweets WC, Yang ZY, Dickins JM (1992). "Permo-Triassic events in the eastern Tethysan 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. 17. 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.
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?
My house wasn't around back then to get flooded.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?
Holocene thermal max was much warmer than the present day and yet no disaster like you claim will occur. Why is that?
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.
My gosh but you are simply one of the most ignorant posters I have ever seen.
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.
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.
1=No evidence to support the theory.
2=Lots of evidence that leads to global COOLING.
3=No evidence to support the theory.
4=No evidence to support the theory.
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.
Dormant? Not hardly. Tiny eruption? What the hell are you smoking? Mr. Mountain building event seems to not understand geologic timescales.
Which model are you talking about?So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling?
Oceans are huge heatsinks. To have that effect SUDDENLY and CONVIENIENTLY kick in UNANTICIPATED and UNANNOUNCED (in a short number of years) just illustrates how this AGW sideshow isn't even out of "concept phase" yet..
I'm sorry, were you expecting the ocean to send you a memo?
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.
1=No evidence to support the theory.
2=Lots of evidence that leads to global COOLING.
3=No evidence to support the theory.
4=No evidence to support the theory.
No evidence? OK then, what are you talking about? Just go away. You're a fucking idiot anyway.
MO ron
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.
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.
"Pristine air on the planet" include investigators driving the mere 18 miles to Kileahua and donning gas masks as he drives thru the plumes?? Just saw a series on weather channel of this.. Active lava flows on the SE coast within VIEW of Mona Loa?
Perhaps we stop wasting taxpayer money on air quality alerts for the Islands Volcano Park center located between Kileahua and Mona Loa.
NPS and USGS: Hawai`i Volcanoes NP Current Sulfur Dioxide and Particulate Advisory
15ppm seems to be the "filtered" average offset. Probably using a several year filter. And that low number can change significantly and integrate over a year's time.
Just saying it's troublesome measuring minute changes..
