A Note: Global Warming Threads

[Billy T]

Thanks for the laugh. ...

If you think it funny as is impossible, then point out why it is not possible. Note I have never claimed it is likely - only that that we don't know if it will or will not happen.

Earth, like Venus does have two stable states. Venus switched from the one like Earth is in now to the hot stable state with thick IR absorbing atmosphere a long time ago - exactly how long ago is still subject for debate.

Do you know any reason why Earth could not switch to its hot stable state (high pressure steam atmosphere at surface, until the oceans boil away, then hotter surface.)?

 

[billvon]

Do you know any reason why Earth could not switch to its hot stable state (high pressure steam atmosphere at surface, until the oceans boil away, then hotter surface.)?

Because its blackbody temperature would increase. This would greatly increase the rate at which energy is radiated away from the earth, while not changing the amount of energy received. This, in turn, would reduce temperatures.

 

[adoucette]

If you think it funny as is impossible, then point out why it is not possible. Note I have never claimed it is likely - only that that we don't know if it will or will not happen.

Earth, like Venus does have two stable states. Venus switched from the one like Earth is in now to the hot stable state with thick IR absorbing atmosphere a long time ago - exactly how long ago is still subject for debate.

Do you know any reason why Earth could not switch to its hot stable state (high pressure steam atmosphere at surface, until the oceans boil away, then hotter surface.)?

Try not to talk about what you don't have a clue about Billy.
Makes you look like less of a fool.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Because its blackbody temperature would increase. This would greatly increase the rate at which energy is radiated away from the earth, while not changing the amount of energy received. This, in turn, would reduce temperatures.

That would be true if the atmosphere were nearly transparent to IR as it is today or a "bare Earth".

Black body loses thru an IR thin atmosphere do go as T^4, but when the atmosphere is thick in the IR region of the black body peak (which increases linearly with temperature) it is the most upper levels of the atmosphere that do all the radiation that escapes from the Earth.

Thus Earth, instead of having a surface temperature of ~300K it would be the very highest layers that have that temperature. (The “one optical depth” thickness, which of course depends upon the wavelength.) At the surface, the temperature would be much higher. The adiabatic lapse rate formulae still basically apply. The surface temperature would be "clamped" at about 400K due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, until they boil away.

The atmosphere is why the surface of Venus is hotter than melting lead. Venus being closer to the sun has little to due with the high surface temperature of Venus. Here is the proof: Venus's mean distance from the sun is 108.3E6km vs. Earth’s 149.6e6KM so gets roughly (149.6 / 108.3)^2 =1.38^2 = 1.90 times more solar energy incident on it / meter squared and is nearly the same size as Earth. Thus, for the moment neglecting the atmospheric and surface albedo < 1 effects, we would expect Venus to need a temperature to radiate back into space 1.9 times more than bare earth does with a 300K surface. (Actually the bare Earth surface would colder than 300K. I seem to recall it is ~280K but forget what albedo was assumed.)

Let T be the temperature of "bare Venus." Then (T/300)^4 = 1.9 or T is the fourth root of 1.9x81E8 = (154)E8 or T = 352.3K I.e. only 52,3 degrees hotter than Earth! That is the T^4 of Planks law almost completely over rides the inverse square law of the solar flux. Or as I said, almost all of the huge surface temperature of Venus is due to the fact that the atmosphere is opaque to IR trying to escape from the surface. The same would be true of Earth with a steam atmosphere. Water vapor is a very powerful green house gas - much more so than CO2 or even Ch4.

SUMMARY: You cannot just consider the black body temperature of 'Bare Earth" when the atmosphere is a very thick layer of water vapor (steam).

 

[Billy T]

Try not to talk about what you don't have a clue about Billy. Makes you look like less of a fool. Arthur

I don't look like a fool, unless you can show some error. Certainly not because you say I am. Why is it you only attack me and never the logic or facts I post? I would say your only doing that shows you cannot find any fault with the physics or facts I described in the links that can led to the possibility of Earth switching to its hot stable state. Again, I am not claiming this is likely only that it is possible for Earth to do what Venus has done.

Note I made no statements about the amount the sea would rise, so there was no need for you too. Also note that I am not disputing the IPCC's model for sea rise or claiming to know more than they do. What I am doing is considering that one of their assumptions (namely that CH4 concentrations are so small that they can be neglected) MAY be false.

I suspect I know a great deal more than you do about the IR absorption of various gases, about the mechanism by which CH4 is currently quickly removed by oxidation from the air and the critical role the OH radical plays in this. And I understand that currently there is enough OH- to not be rate limiting on the destruction process, but that it could be if the CH4 concentration were higher. (The main first step in the destruction of CH4 is for an OH- to remove one of the four Hs of CH4 to form H2O. Thus EVERY CH4 destroyed also removes an OH- which the solar UV recreates high in the atmosphere but not immediately where needed to continue the destruction of the CH4 and there are other sources of H high up to kill the freshly formed OH-.)

Why not read up on some of this and then, when you know something, be critical of what I have posted, instead of me. I understand that if you are ignorant of these mechanisms, that attacking me is all you can do, but does than not make you look foolish? I will be happy to discuss the facts and physics with you.

 

[adoucette]

I don't look like a fool, unless you can show some error. Certainly not because you say I am. Why is it you only attack me and never the logic or facts I post? I would say your only doing that shows you cannot find any fault with the physics or facts I described in the links that can led to the possibility of Earth switching to its hot stable state. Again, I am not claiming this is likely only that it is possible for Earth to do what Venus has done.

No Billy, it is not only not likely it is PREPOSTEROUS.

The atmosphere of Venus is so thick with CO2 that on the surface of the planet it is like being 1 km under the ocean on earth.

Yes, 1 km.

In contrast we have ~1.8 ppm of CH4 in the Atmosphere.

Direct atmospheric measurement of atmospheric methane has been possible since the late 1970s and its concentration rose from 1.52 ppmv in 1978 by around 1 percent per year to 1990, since when there has been little sustained increase. The current atmospheric concentration is approximately 1.77 ppmv, and there is no scientific consensus on why methane has not risen much since around 1990.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

So in roughly 40 years the increase in CH4 has been LESS than 1/2 of one part per million.

Yes, in 40 years the increase is less than HALF the annual increase in CO2.

So NO, there is no evidence that CH4 is going to be an issue like it is in Venus, or, given our present oceans and atmosphere it ever could become like Venus.

Why?

Well because Venus started out from a very different place than we are at on the Earth.

Because Venus was slightly closer to the Sun than the Earth, its water never liquified and remained in the atmosphere to start the greenhouse heating. As Venus heated up, some of the carbon dioxide in the rocks was "baked out." The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide enhanced the greenhouse heating. That baked more carbon dioxide out of the rocks (as well as any water) and a runaway positive feedback loop process occurred.

But there is ONE other important fact as to why it won't happen here:

Venus' water was always in the gaseous form and could reach high enough in the atmosphere for ultraviolet light from the Sun to hit it. Ultraviolet light is energetic enough to break apart, or dissociate, water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The very light hydrogen atoms were able to escape into space and the heavier oxygen atoms combined with other atoms. Venus' water was eventually zapped away. The Earth's ozone layer prevents the same thing from happening to the water here.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

Which is why you will find NO REFERENCE to these silly claims of us turning into Venus in the entire IPCC AR4.

NONE.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

I don't look like a fool, unless you can show some error.

''''
Note I made no statements about the amount the sea would rise, so there was no need for you too.

Well yes Billy you did.

(4a)At some increase in global temperatures, perhaps only a degree or two, a much stronger positive feed back system will be triggered and then there is no way to prevent eventual seal level rise of about 100 meters

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1177065&postcount=26

Also note that I am not disputing the IPCC's model for sea rise or claiming to know more than they do. What I am doing is considering that one of their assumptions (namely that CH4 concentrations are so small that they can be neglected) MAY be false.

Why YES Billy, you are disputing their models because the IPCC clearly have a number of Scenarios where the temp rise is over few degrees but they CLEARLY state that even in those scenarios the most the oceans will rise is a few meters over many centurys OR millennia. They did address the melting of a part of the Antarctica ice cap, they discussed just for the East Antarctic ice sheet (not all of Antarctica by any means, which has persisted in a frozen state for ~14 million years) The IPCC 2001 report states: "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years."

I suspect I know a great deal more than you do

Yeah Billy, why don't you tell us more about that unseen Black Hole that is going to pass by Earth and ruin our day.

LOL

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

the IPCC clearly have a number of Scenarios where the temp rise is over few degrees but they CLEARLY state that even in those scenarios the most the oceans will rise is a few meters over many centurys OR millennia.

Do you know how confident that prediction is?

You must be aware that the IPCC can't see into the future, so how well delineated is a few meters of sealevel rise, over centuries? Does this prediction take account of what is known about ice sheet dynamics, or about methane reserves?

(I would say the answer is yes, of course the IPCC takes them into account. So it's down to how much is known about ice streams and shelving, all that complicated stuff, which is not well understood except in general, and how accurate the estimates are of methane reserves and the potential for anoxic bacterial growth in the oceans.)

But of course, if the IPCC says so, we can all relax...

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

I got it. I understand . Took Me a while to get it straight. First I considered the Moolder Max Imam then I considered the Moulder min Iman , c=onsulted both at the same time . Looked at ice Core scores of complete reactant nut cases and plain and clear the soulution came forth. CLIMATE CHANGES

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

If you think it funny as is impossible, then point out why it is not possible. Note I have never claimed it is likely - only that that we don't know if it will or will not happen.

Earth, like Venus does have two stable states. Venus switched from the one like Earth is in now to the hot stable state with thick IR absorbing atmosphere a long time ago - exactly how long ago is still subject for debate.

Do you know any reason why Earth could not switch to its hot stable state (high pressure steam atmosphere at surface, until the oceans boil away, then hotter surface.)?

might happen, better get busy exploring space before it does. Space the final frontier. Humanity a blip on the road map of time or destined to expand into the abbes of unlimited space. Get it together now , Think Mark Think

 

[adoucette]

Do you know how confident that prediction is?

Yes The ranges given are 5 to 95% intervals characterising the spread of model results,

You must be aware that the IPCC can't see into the future, so how well delineated is a few meters of sealevel rise, over centuries? Does this prediction take account of what is known about ice sheet dynamics, or about methane reserves?

You need to read IPCC AR4 WG1 - Chap 10 Global Climate Projections.

However, the way that the IPCC works is the future projections are based on SCENARIOS, and the IPCC at this point considers all scenarios equally likely.
The Scenarios are quite different, so it's somewhat reasonable to say that they do a decent job of conveying the RANGE of possibilities, the problem is you can't easily figure out which is the more likely possibility.

Still, for sea level rise, over this century, they are in broad agreement:

From WG1 - 10.6.5 Projections of Global Average Sea Level Change for the 21st Century

Sea level rise in meters based on various Senarios by 2099:
B1 .38m
B2 .43m
A1B .48m
A1T .45m
A2 .51m
A1FI .59m

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

However, the way that the IPCC works is the future projections are based on SCENARIOS, and the IPCC at this point considers all scenarios equally likely.

Is that a change in the earlier position that was more or less "we don't know how accurate the models are yet"? So after 30 years, the models are now considered accurate as long as the paradigm is "the most likely set of outcomes", like a weather forecast?

And that's despite an admission that not very much is understood about ice sheets, or what might trigger anoxic collapse in the oceans? Is it more dependable than say, the predictions of Wall St were three years ago? It's definitely a prediction we can depend on because it takes a conservative approach?

So does it give the civilised world at least one more century to carry on as usual? Then whatever happens after, it won't be because we didn't know the next century was going to be "all good"?

 

[Billy T]

Thanks for switching to discussion of the physics and the fact, instead of me.

… Why YES Billy, you are disputing their models because the IPCC clearly have a number of Scenarios where the temp rise is over few degrees but they CLEARLY state that even in those scenarios the most the oceans will rise is a few meters over many centurys OR millennia… East Antarctic ice sheet (not all of Antarctica by any means, which has persisted in a frozen state for ~14 million years) The IPCC 2001 report states: "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years
Arthur

I am considering a possible case, which has NEVER happened in the history of the Earth. Thus, historical facts have nothing to say about it. As my links make clear, the Unique aspect is the unpresidented RATE of CO2 release. This plus the huge amount of methane ice stored on the near shore ocean floors which decomposes to release CH4 as the water temperature increases. That methane ice has not always been there. It can (and was) decomposed SLOWLY by a warming Earth many times in the past. If it slowly decomposes, the released CH4 is destroyed in the atmosphere, becoming H2O and CO2.

Although H2O is a much stronger GHG than CO2, it condenses and falls out as rain (snow, etc.). The CO2 crosses the air/ ocean interface and makes limestone, shells etc. So the slow releases of the past with warming water have not caused the Earth to switch to its hot stable state. Likewise the rate of ocean water warming in most of the oceans even today is not rapid enough to be a concern. – AFAIK only in the Arctic Ocean has bubbling up methane been detected.

In the Arctic Ocean, the water is warming more rapidly as a positive feedback is in operation. I.e. when floating ice was covering the near shore Arctic Ocean, the albedo was about 0.95 and even the 5% of solar radiation that was absorbed provided little heating of the water below the ice as ice has low thermal conductivity. I.e. instead of heating the ocean water, that heat was transferred to the air when the air temperature was >0C. This has all changed now that the near shore ice is melting and the albedo is less than 0.2 so at least 80% of the solar heating is now heating the water.

Higher pressurer (deeper water) does stabilize the methnane ice against warming water, but not in the near shore ocean. There it is a fact that the methane ice is decomposing and the CH4 is bubbling up – so much that it is interfering with sub’s sonars. (Why it was noticed and then studied by Soviet scientists, who have also noted that on shore methane ice in the tundra is also decomposing.)

I have no way to know what rate of CH4 release is needed to make the positive feedback loop have a gain greater than unity but some rate can. If that feedback loop does get a gain of unity, then it is quite probable than that Earth will switch to the hot stable state.

Initially, while the OH radical concentration in the air is not limiting the rate of destruction of CH4 the lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere will remain unchanged. I.e. with twice the rate of CH4 release the destruction per unit time will be twice as great. Unfortunately, this destruction process removes the OH radical in the lower atmosphere and it is produced only by UV splitting of H2O at very high altitudes. Thus it is quite possible that when there is too little OH- in the lower atmosphere the lifetime of CH4 being released into the lower atmosphere will greatly increase. If this happens the loop gain of the positive feedback system decomposing the methane ice will become greater than unity (assuming it is not already). Then the rate of CH4 will greatly increase as even near shore, non-arctic, oceans begin to decompose their methane ice.

Positive feedback systems with gain greater than unity are unstable. They grow until some saturation mechanism begins to operate and reduce the loop gain to unity. The only saturation mechanism I am aware of is that there will be some areas of the ocean floor that have decomposed all the methane ice they once held. Unfortunately, there is more carbon stored in the methane ice on the ocean floors than all the carbon man has yet released by burning fossil fuels. Furthermore, CH4 is at least 10 times stronger GHG than CO2. This is because CO2 is a linear molecule i.e. O--C--O which has only two vibrational modes, or “branches” as they are called by those knowledgeable about spectral lines. The symmetric mode: O----C----O (This crude drawing showing the instant of max bond stretch compared to O--C--O ground state.) and the anti symmetric mode: O-C-----O. In contrast CH4 is a three dimensional structure with at least a dozen distinct ways to vibrate and 50% more rotational modes too as the linear CO2 has essentially zero moment of inertia about one of the three possible rotational axis.

Note the main reason why H2O is much stronger GHG than CO2 is that it is NOT a linear molecule. From the POV of the O atom, the two Hs are on the same side with 105 degrees angular separation. I happen to know a great deal about molecules and their IR absorption structures. - Everyone who got a Ph.D. in physics from JHU does as spectroscopy is the main focus of the JHU physics department, at least when I was a graduate student there.

SUMMARY: It is the man-made RATE of CO2 release which has never happened before that MAY make a disaster – Earth switching to the hot stable state. I agree that this is not what caused Venus to switch to its hot stable state. (Venus never had advanced life forms burning fossil fuels.) I have never suggested that Earth must use the same mechanism to make the switch that Venus used. Thus telling me that the conditions on Venus that led to Venus switching do not exist on Earth (I.e. Earth has temperature that allows H2O to be liquid, etc.) is irrelevant.

The mechanism of Earth switching will not be the same – I agree. If it happens, it will be due to man releasing CO2 much more rapidly than has ever happen before and the minor, but more rapid, ocean heating via rapidly increasing CO2 absorption of IR trying to escape from Earth then causing the decomposition of the methane ice to release CH4 more rapidly than atmospheric destruction processes can remove it. I.e. we do not know either at what rate CH4 will be released* (Decomposition of methane ice is just now starting in the Arctic Ocean) nor at what concentration of CH4 in the lower atmosphere the critical concentration of OH radical will be reached so that it does begin to limit the destruction rate of the released CH4 and greatly increases the mean life time of CH4 in the atmosphere – leading to a greater than unity gain positive feedback system which dumps a huge amount of CH4 into the air, making the CO2 released relatively unimportant as a cause of Earth’s temperature rise. I am not worried about the direct effects of CO2 concentrations rising as they have SLOWLY become at least twice their present levels in the past.

* Thus your noting in post below the prior slow rate of CH4 release is also irrelevant. We are speaking of an entire new mechanism for CH4 release that is just now beginning, not the belches and farts of animals (anaerobic micro-organisms included.) releasing CH4.

... So in roughly 40 years the increase in CH4 has been LESS than 1/2 of one part per million. ...Arthur

PS you have yet to show any error of mine, either in facts or logic that concludes it is possible for Earth to switch to its hot stable state.
Thus, I do not look foolish, you do for calling me a fool with nothing to support your statement except for two irrelevant facts with which I agreed (in bold above).

 

[Billy T]

... You must be aware that the IPCC can't see into the future, ... Does this prediction take account of what is known about ice sheet dynamics, or about methane reserves? ...

There are many uncertanities, even in their present models, much less what they are assuming about the future. I will just mention one:

How large is the ocean surface? It is across that air ocean interface that the CO2 released is mainly removed. It is at least twice as large as that one would infer by looking at a map of the oceans. This is because there are waves and "zillions" of small and tiny bubbles - why "white cap" waves are white.

The net rate of transfer of CO2 from the air into the ocean water depends, essentially directly, upon the the pressure of the CO2 in the gas phase, (and several other factors) but in tiny bubbles, due to their surface tension that pressure can be much more than atmospheric. Furthermore, if the bubbles are meters deep in the ocean, the gas pressure inside the larger bubble is also greater than atmospheric and in some cases the concentration of CO2 in the water (diffusing back across the interface) may be less than at the surface, so this also increases the net rate of transfer of CO2 into the water.

The IPCC is of course aware of these complications, but no one knows with accuracy how large the effective sink for CO2 the ocean is. Why some researchers with POV that global heating by CO2 is not serious can conclude that the ocean sink is large enough to absorb all the CO2 that man is releasing, but only needs times as there is a lag. etc.

 

[adoucette]

I am considering a possible case, which has NEVER happened in the history of the Earth.

EXCEPT Billy, You are not a climate scientist and ALL of this is known to the actual IPCC climate scientists and yet they are NOT predicting anything of the sort.

Your predictions are based soley on your assumptions even though you admit you don't have a clue about the key ones necessary for this scenario to occur.

To start with, the BOTTOM layers of the Arctic are NOT warming because of the slight change in total Arctic ice cover for a relatively short part of the year, indeed the surface is colder than the lower layers.

In large parts of the Arctic Ocean, the top layer (50–50 m) is of lower salinity and lower temperature as the rest. It remains relatively stable, because the salinity effect on density is bigger than the temperature effect. It is fed by the freshwater input of the big Siberian and Canadian streams (Ob, Yenissey, Lena, MacKenzie), the water of which quasi floats on the saltier, denser, deeper ocean water. Between this lower salinity layer and the bulk of the ocean lies the so called halocline, in which both salinity and temperature are rising with increasing depth. Any convection eddies caused by the temperature difference between the cold ocean surface and the warmer depth stop at this thermocline, leaving only heat conduction as upward heat transport mechanism, which is orders of magnitude smaller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean

Secondly, there is no evidence of any increasing release of CH4 globally. Indeed, the very slow increase in the levels of CH4 in the atmosphere have essentially stopped around 1990.

Direct atmospheric measurement of atmospheric methane has been possible since the late 1970s and its concentration rose from 1.52 ppmv in 1978 by around 1 percent per year to 1990, since when there has been little sustained increase. The current atmospheric concentration is approximately 1.77 ppmv, and there is no scientific consensus on why methane has not risen much since around 1990.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

As to Methane Hydrates, they are located in the "shallow lithosphere" but that is NOT really that shallow:

Methane clathrates are restricted to the shallow lithosphere (i.e. < 2000 m depth). Furthermore, necessary conditions are found ... in oceanic sediment at water depths greater than 300 m where the bottom water temperature is around 2 °C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

And there is no detectable heating of the oceans at 300 meters, nor could it occur anytime soon (within centuries at least). The increase in warming from CO2 is just not sufficient to raise these deep water ocean temps.

Nor is the size of the methane reservoir as large as has been claimed, indeed, the more we know about it the smaller it gets:

The size of the oceanic methane clathrate reservoir is poorly known, and estimates of its size decreased by roughly an order of magnitude per decade since it was first recognized that clathrates could exist in the oceans during the 1960s and '70s. The highest estimates (e.g. 3×1018 m³)[19] were based on the assumption that fully dense clathrates could litter the entire floor of the deep ocean. Improvements in our understanding of clathrate chemistry and sedimentology have revealed that hydrates only form in a narrow range of depths (continental shelves), only at some locations in the range of depths where they could occur (10-30% of the GHSZ), and typically are found at low concentrations (0.9-1.5% by volume) at sites where they do occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

I have no way to know what rate of CH4 release is needed to make the positive feedback loop have a gain greater than unity

Kinda says it all right there Billy.

Lack of knowledge though doesn't prevent you from posting your silly scare stories though, now does it?

By the way Billy, while you are at it, can you tell us about when that Black Hole that you wrote about that is heading towards our solar system and is going to push the Earth out of it's orbit is going to get here?

Blurb about Billy's Book:

Recent astronomical observations indicate that a black hole is approaching our solar system. Although the black hole will pass more distant than the orbit of Saturn, its gravity will slightly change the Earth's orbit. The year will become 378 days long. During winter it will be 6% closer to the sun and during summer, 11% farther away. The resulting milder winter and cooler summers are a curse, not a blessing. Heavy "spring snows" will fall all winter long and not entirely melt in the colder following summer. Mathematical proofs of these facts are included in the scientific report section and appendix.

The approaching black hole will never be visible in telescopes, but its trajectory is now known from observations of small perturbations in Pluto's orbit. If the authors' predictions are true, the global catastrophe that will begin in 2007 will be far worse than any that has ever occurred before.

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Visitor-...=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296917500&sr=1-7

Review:

I've seldom read a more disorganized book. If they had a point they went to great pains to hide it. .... I saw one positive review. Must have been from a relative or a creditor.

To bad Amazon doesn't give refunds

LOL

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

EXCEPT Billy, You are not a climate scientist and ALL of this is known to the actual IPCC climate scientists and yet they are NOT predicting anything of the sort.

I am a Ph. D. physicist, more well versed in spectroscopic considerations, like absorption of IR, radiative transport etc. than most. I do think that the low historic concentrations of CH4 (your last 40 years data) are mainly why CH4 is not being considered in the IPCC models - probably has less effect than the uncertainties, such as the effective size of the Ocean sink of CO2. - See my comments on this in post 354.

You are basically making an "appeal to authority" argument, not pointing out any flaw in my facts or logic that shows it may be possible for Earth to switch to its hot stable state. I will admit that the IPCC has either not considered what rapid decomposition of methane ice could do or probably was not aware that it had started in the Arctic Ocean near shore waters and land tundra when they made their last reports. That has only been known for a few years, and mainly by Russian scientists.

Your predictions are based soley on your assumptions even though you admit you don't have a clue about the key ones necessary for this scenario to occur.

First they are not "predictions" and secondly what I said was that I don't know what rate of CH4 release is required to exceed the rate of atmospheric destruction of CH4 so that it accumulates. That is not even an "assumption." Just a statement that this is a complex question, which AFAIK no one has tried to answer.

To start with, the BOTTOM layers of the Arctic are NOT warming because of the slight change in total Arctic ice cover for a relatively short part of the year, indeed the surface is colder than the lower layers.

Please note that I spoke ONLY of the land tundra and near shore Arctic Ocean, several times and NEVER of the deeper parts. Thus these comments of yours are also irrelevant. One cannot argue with the observations that from both tundra and these near shore parts of the Arctic Ocean near Siberia that CH4 has recently stated to be released. Perhaps the “canary” that is just now warning of possible serious atmospheric trouble?

…As to Methane Hydrates, they are located in the "shallow lithosphere" but that is NOT really that shallow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
And there is no detectable heating of the oceans at 300 meters, nor could it occur anytime soon (within centuries at least). The increase in warming from CO2 is just not sufficient to raise these deep water ocean temps.

I am aware that the methane hydrates are mainly found in the littoral waters – thus again your statements about the deep ocean are irrelevant. One of the reasons why this is true can be understood by detailed examination of where they have most accumulated. Large river delta out flows is where they are concentrated. This is because the Methane is produced by the anaerobic decay of the organic matter that these large rivers had deposited on the near shore ocean floor. One reason why the Siberian coastal region is unusually rich in methane ice is that many rivers in Russia mainly flow north into the arctic. The US’s Mississippi and the Amazon are also great producers, but as the gulf tropical water is warm they do form deeper where higher pressure can stabilize them. Do you recall the BP’s early attempt to capture the leaking oil was frustrated by “ice” blocking the collection pipe? – They never identified that ice but I am quite sure it was methane hydrate ice.

…Nor is the size of the methane reservoir as large as has been claimed, indeed, the more we know about it the smaller it gets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

I assume that is true. It has not been many decades that man has known that the methane hydrates even existed and initially why they exist was not understood, so yes once they were discovered on the ocean floor, it was reasonable to assume they were common in the deep ocean too.

…Lack of knowledge though doesn't prevent you from posting your silly scare stories though, now does it? By the way Billy, while you are at it, can you tell us about when that Black Hole that you wrote about that is heading towards our solar system and is going to push the Earth out of it's orbit is going to get here?

As I have more than once already explained that was a fiction, modeled on Orson Well’s “war of the worlds” scaring approach as my attempt to get some pre law and pre-med student to at least look at some physics, your misrepresentation of it as “my prediction” is dishonest, to say the least. Again, instead of attacking me, especially with dishonest distortions, let’s discuss the physic and facts. I.e. with some relevant comments by you.

If I have exhibited "lack of knowledge" please tell specifically where I have made an error.

 

[adoucette]

I am a Ph. D. physicist, more well versed in spectroscopic considerations, like absorption of IR, radiative transport etc. than most. I do think that the low historic concentrations of CH4 (your last 40 years data) are mainly why CH4 is not being considered in the IPCC models

And they have Ph.D physicists at work at the IPCC well versed in the radiative effects of GHGs and you are also TOTALLY WRONG in that they DO include CH4 in the IPCC models. See IPCC AR4 WG1 reports.

You are basically making an "appeal to authority" argument, not pointing out any flaw in my facts or logic that shows it may be possible for Earth to switch to its hot stable state.

FALSE, I have pointed to the IPCC reports which do include the impact of CH4 and the warming of the oceans, and the projected level of sea level rise etc etc and they don't at all mention your hypthothetical "warm stable state" and as Wiki points out Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The IPCC is a recognized authority on possible future climates and forcings. You on the other hand are not.

I will admit that the IPCC has either not considered what rapid decomposition of methane ice could do or probably was not aware that it had started in the Arctic Ocean near shore waters and land tundra when they made their last reports. That has only been known for a few years, and mainly by Russian scientists.

BULL, the existance of Methane Hydrates have been known for ~50 years, which is a LONG time and the IPCC scientists DO reference CH4 from Tundra. They don't worry about methane ice from 300+ meters down because significant warming at that depth is simply not in the cards anytime soon.

What they DO say about Methane however is quite different then what you are suggesting:

Increases in CH4 abundance occur when emissions exceed removals. The recent decline in growth rates implies that emissions now approximately match removals, which are due primarily to oxidation by the hydroxyl radical (OH).
Since the TAR, new studies using two independent tracers (methyl chloroform and 14CO) suggest no significant long-term change in the global abundance of OH. Thus, the slowdown in the atmospheric CH4 growth rate since about 1993 is likely due to the atmosphere approaching an equilibrium during a period of near-constant total emissions

IPCC AR4 WG1 Technical Summary - TS.2.1.1 Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide

OOPS.

First they are not "predictions" and secondly what I said was that I don't know what rate of CH4 release is required to exceed the rate of atmospheric destruction of CH4 so that it accumulates. That is not even an "assumption." Just a statement that this is a complex question, which AFAIK no one has tried to answer.

That's fine, but if you don't have a clue what the rate of CH4 release has to be to be a problem and thus no idea if it is even plausible then why are you presuming possible outcomes?

As I have more than once already explained that was a fiction, modeled on Orson Well’s “war of the worlds” scaring approach as my attempt to get some pre law and pre-med student to at least look at some physics, your misrepresentation of it as “my prediction” is dishonest, to say the least.

Just Self Serving BS Billy as there is nothing in that Product Description on Amazon to indicate that this book is a "scaring apporach", that's just a convenient FICTION you invented since the prediction of a catastrophe in 2007 did not occur.

Product Description
Europe and the USA will soon be covered by thick ice, according to the scientific report section of Dark Visitor. The primary author is a Harvard educated astronomer and one of the other two has a Ph.D. in climatology and worked for NOAA, so this report must be taken seriously.

Recent astronomical observations indicate that a black hole is approaching our solar system. Although the black hole will pass more distant than the orbit of Saturn, its gravity will slightly change the Earth's orbit. The year will become 378 days long. During winter it will be 6% closer to the sun and during summer, 11% farther away. The resulting milder winter and cooler summers are a curse, not a blessing. Heavy "spring snows" will fall all winter long and not entirely melt in the colder following summer. Mathematical proofs of these facts are included in the scientific report section and appendix.

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Visitor-...=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296917500&sr=1-7

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

... Just Self Serving BS Billy as there is nothing in that Product Description on Amazon to indicate that this book is a "scaring apporach", ... Arthur

Nor should or could there be if your purpose was to scare some bright pre-med, pre-law and business students planning to make big bucks on Wall Street into at least looking at some physics.

I get some Cornell alumni notices, magazines. An article in one triggered me to write my book. It told of how students were given modest real money accounts to invest in stocks and the results, about a year later. One result was that almost all of the physics majors who had participated had switched to more business related fields. That made me angry. The US had already lost technological leadership to Asia, and I feared in a generation or so, the scientific leadership would be lost too.

If CH4 is included in the IPCC studies, then I am wrong to state it is not but given the extremely low levels, now and for 40 years, there is no need to have included it as the errors on more important aspects are much larger than its total effects* - I.e. I assumed that they knew that and would not bother to include it any more than the heating by reflected moon light needs to be included. I have never read their reports. Perhaps they do include moon light heating too?
-------------------
*Assuming there is no new, and potentially large source of CH4 release, such as decomposing methane hydrates.

 

[adoucette]

More self serving BS.

The problem is Billy, EVERYTHING you write is totally PESSIMISTIC.

Everything.

You can't help yourself.

In your latest flight of fantasy you have postulated the Earth with a friggin STEAM ATMOSPHERE at the surface of the Earth and the Oceans BOILING AWAY.

Which says you don't have a friggin clue about the limits to our climate.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

If CH4 is included in the IPCC studies, then I am wrong to state it is not but given the extremely low levels, now and for 40 years, there is no need to have included it as the errors on more important aspects are much larger than its total effects* - I.e. I assumed that they knew that and would not bother to include it any more than the heating by reflected moon light needs to be included.

Again why do you post about what you know nothing about?

any more than the heating by reflected moon light needs to be included

That's REALLY FUNNY considering this recent boast:

I am a Ph. D. physicist, more well versed in spectroscopic considerations, like absorption of IR, radiative transport etc. than most

WTF Billy?

CH4 is the second largest forcing in the IPCC reports after CO2 at ~+.48 w/m^2, representing ~30% of the total climate forcing.

IPCC AR4 WG1 Tech Summary - TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing

I never read their reports.

No kidding.

LOL

Arthur