A Note: Global Warming Threads

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
If true, then give some arguments showing it can not happen. You called the Earth's hot stable state "hypothetical" - are you implying it is not even possible for the Earth to switch into that stable state? (As it can not repeat exactly the process by which Venus did switch? I agree it can't follow the same process that Venus did, but not that the switch is impossible.) The hot stable state of Earth does have an IR opaque atmosphere of mainly steam, very hot at the surface but still at about 300K in the top most optically thick IR opaque layer, to radiate back into space the solar heating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... CH4 is the second largest forcing in the IPCC reports after CO2 at ~+.48 w/m^2, representing ~30% of the total climate forcing. ... Arthur
Now you are scarring me. I did not know those facts. I.e. only a factor of three increase in atmosphereic concentrations of CH4 from the current tiny levels would make it as important as CO2!

I have stated that the possibility of Earth switching to the hot stable state was unlikely, but now I am not so sure as the Arctic methane ice is just now starting to decompose rapidly enough to "bubble up" instead of just be a dissolving gas in the ocean water.

I admit that I have not, and do not, follow well the numerical values of various concentrations etc. I only speculate about the possible mechanisms that physics permits.

I hope someone is setting upper limits on how fast the methane ice can decompose, now that it has started to bubble out of the ocean into the air and will make careful study of how large the rate of CH4 addition must be to erode the OH- concentration in the lower atmosphere so that it rapidly accumulates in a run-away, positive-feedback, thermal-heating system.

BTW, I don't always post a pessimistic point of view. When someone does post some physical nonsense, I stomp all over them. For example in my post 289, part of which is:
FALSE. You do not understand some very basic physics so have been mislead and are trying to mislead others by presenting the graph of Water Vapor CONCENTRATION. ...SUMMARY: I hope you understand now that it is FALSE, ignorant nonsense, to conclude that increasing CO2 concentrations is not a concern because the H2O CONCENTRATION is already more than 1000 times higher than the CO2 concentration is. ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If true, then give some arguments showing it can not happen.

Nope, not the way Science or Debate works.

YOU came up with the EXTRODINARY CLAIM, thus it falls on YOU to support your claim, not for me to waste my day finding evidence that you are wrong since you pointed out, you haven't a clue if it is even possible or not yourself:

BillyT said:
I don't know what rate of CH4 release is required to exceed the rate of atmospheric destruction of CH4 so that it accumulates.

So when you DO KNOW, then you can debate your point.

Even so, I did point to the IPCC report and it has not a shred of support for your hypothectical "Hot Stable" version of Earth, nor have you provided one, nor have you shown what it would take to create a steam atmosphere at the surface of the earth, etc etc etc.

Arthur
 
Nope, not the way Science or Debate works.

YOU came up with the EXTRODINARY CLAIM,
Not "extrodinary" to suggest it is possible for Earth to switch as Venus did. I am not making a claim that it will happen - only asking why it could not.
... Even so, I did point to the IPCC report and it has not a shred of support for your hypothectical "Hot Stable" version of Earth, nor have you provided one, nor have you shown what it would take to create a steam atmosphere at the surface of the earth, etc etc etc. Arthur
We agree that the IPCC is not considering this switch to the hot stable state. That is not proof that it is is impossible.

Yes I have explained in some detail what it takes for Earth to switch: Release of CH4 significantly more rapidly than it is destroyed by oh- in the lower air and explained that the destruction process can eat up the available OH- required for the destruction of CH4 in the lower atmosphere. That, and why, CH4 is much more effective GHG than CO2, and that if it did become a higher percentage of the atmosphere the atmosphere would become "optically thick" to most IR trying to escape. I gave a simple calculation showing that only 52degrees C of Venus's much higher than earth's surface temperature is due to Venus being closer to the sun.

The vast major of the high surface temperature of Venus is due to the green house effect of a thick, IR-opaque, atmosphere, such as Earth's would have if the atmosphere is mainly steam, which it would become due to ocean evaporation and significantly higher concentrations of CH4 greatly reducing the escape of IR from the Earth.
 
hmm...one of a billion AGW threads on the internets.

As I have said elsewhere...when an atmospheric physicist explains how exactly CO2 causes warming, when pre-industrial CO2 levels were already close to saturation for absorption, then I'll buy it. Until then, it's all just a bunch of hogwash to me.

And the argument about toxicity of CO2? Everything has an LD...EVERYTHING.

Water is also toxic at a certain point.

No they aren't.
To use one example, absorption at the band at 2350 cm[sup]-1[/sup] is approximately linear up to around the 3% mark. 300ppm = 0.03%.

nasaf3.jpg


As near as I can tell this little chest nit of an argument seems to be based on one that dates back to the pre 1950 error when the generally accepted thinking was that carbon dioxide absorption was irrelevant because the absorption bands of water and carbon dioxide coincided, and the absorption bands for water were largely saturated. Since then we've had better predictive models, and better actual experimentation that demonstrates that this is not the case.
 
Not "extrodinary" to suggest it is possible for Earth to switch as Venus did. I am not making a claim that it will happen - only asking why it could not.

Actually you did a little more than simply ask:

BillyT said:
(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. The methane hydrates on ocean floor (more stored carbon than all the fossil fuel yet burned) will begin to decompose, and release CH4 into the atmosphere.

(4b) There is also considerable organic mater currently safely sequestered under ice and snow cover. As Earth warms and this melts, anaerobic bacteria in first few meters of organic rich soil will be releasing great quantities of CH4 into the atmosphere.

(4c) Collectively (4a &b) , are an extremely strong, self accelerating, instability. - Perhaps capable of killing 90+%, if not all, humans.

Except the IPCC has considered and modeled temperatures and climates far higher than 2 C and no such thermal runaway is predicted.


We agree that the IPCC is not considering this switch to the hot stable state. That is not proof that it is is impossible.

They didn't discount flying reindeer either, does that mean they are not impossible?

Yes I have explained in some detail what it takes for Earth to switch: .

No you haven't.
You provided NONE of the key data related to said swich: Like how much CH4 per year does it take to create this impact and as you have admitted, YOU DON'T KNOW.

So you don't know if what you are suggesting is possible or not.

The fact that CH4 is not increasing in the atmosphere since the 90s suggests strongly that the atmosphere is in equilibrium with CH4 and your fears are not warrented.

Arthur
 
No they aren't.
To use one example, absorption at the band at 2350 cm[sup]-1[/sup] is approximately linear up to around the 3% mark. 300ppm = 0.03%.

nasaf3.jpg


As near as I can tell this little chest nit of an argument seems to be based on one that dates back to the pre 1950 error when the generally accepted thinking was that carbon dioxide absorption was irrelevant because the absorption bands of water and carbon dioxide coincided, and the absorption bands for water were largely saturated. Since then we've had better predictive models, and better actual experimentation that demonstrates that this is not the case.


Not to be picky, but tracking back that chart it would appear that chart has to do with absorbtion of CO2 by chemical salts.

Preliminary Study of Molten Ammonium Salt Hydrates as Carbon Dioxide Absorbents for Environmental Control and Life Support System Applications

http://www.uncp.edu/ncsgc/flowers/nasarep.htm

Arthur
 
Not to be picky, but tracking back that chart it would appear that chart has to do with absorbtion of CO2 by chemical salts.

http://www.uncp.edu/ncsgc/flowers/nasarep.htm

Arthur

That's what the experiment is about yes, but that's not what the chart is about, the chart is the calibration curve of the detector they used for doing the experiment.

Calibration of the apparatus depicted in Figure 1 above yielded the plot shown in Figure 2[sic] below. A linear relation between peak absorbance at 2350 cm-1 and carbon dioxide partial pressure was observed up to ca. 0.03 atm (3 %CO2). A negative deviation from linearity was observed at higher pressures that may be a result of pressure broadening of the spectral feature. Regression analysis of the calibration data yielded a calibration equation of A = -3870 atm-2 P2 + 41.2 atm-1 P + 0.005, where A is absorbance at 2350 cm-1 and P is the partial pressure of carbon dioxide. This equation was used to convert absorbances measured during the CO2 sorption experiments described below. Baseline noise levels in these spectra were on the order of 2 mau, corresponding to a detection limit (for S/N > 3) of ca. 0.0002 atm (0.02 %CO2).
nasaf3.jpg

Figure 3. Calibration curve for carbon dioxide (absorbance at 2350 cm-1 versus partial pressure of CO2).[/img]

Fig 4, the next one down, is the graph that deals with the experimental results - the absorption of carbon dioxide by the experiment.

There is an inherent assumption here - that they meant "Calibration of the apparatus depicted in Figure 1 above yielded the plot shown in Figure 3 below..." when they said "Calibration of the apparatus depicted in Figure 1 above yielded the plot shown in Figure 2[sic] below" because Fig 2 is above the text and details the construction of the scrubber used in the experiment.
 
“…March 2010: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing. {original text is bold here}

“… Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming according to the National Science Foundation. Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle. Research published in the journal Science finds a key “lid” on “the large sub-sea permafrostcarbon reservoir” near Eastern Siberia “is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH4 [methane] is escaping to the atmosphere.”

"Scientists learned last year that the permamelt contains a staggering 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere, much of which would be released as methane.* Methane is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years. The carbon is locked in a freezer in the part of the planet warming up the fastest. Half the land-based permafrost would vanish by mid-century on our current emissions path. link.** No climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra. More than 50 billion tons of methane could be unleashed from Siberian lakes alone, more than 10 times the amount now in the atmosphere.…” {Note the original text is red here.} Also note that according to adoucette’s post 360 only a three fold increase would make CH4’s contribution essentially the same as CO2 is making to global warming. Think what a 10 fold increase would do!

From: http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/METHANE.html

* Note they said carbon in the atmosphere, so that means a potential for doubling the mass of carbon in CO2 but as by weight CH4 is ~25 times more effective so that is 50 fold potential increase effective for 100 years. I.e. a nearly completely opaque to IR atmosphere, like Venus has.

** here is the "link" http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/...t-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/
The first diagram at end of this post is from it.

----------------------- Second source:
”…A large amount of methane is bubbling up from the ocean floor east of Siberia at a surprising rate and could accelerate climate change, researchers said yesterday. …” The amount of methane emitted by that one patch of seabed roughly equals the amount scientists believed was released by all of the world's oceans. But just how the discovery will affect projections of future warming is hard to say, according to a team of scientists from the United States, Russia and Sweden who published their findings yesterday in the journal Science. …”

From March 5, 2010 Scientific American article at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-siberia-climate-change

I don’t have link to the Science article – does anyone?

What is extraordinary, is that based on my understanding of the physics alone, I suggested this could be very serious some years ago, as the National Science Foundation scientists are now noting by calling it “the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle.”

NSF.gif
For what they mean by "bursting up" - see photo below.
800px-Boiling_lake_in_Yellowstone_National_Park.jpg
This 2nd photo is from: http://theferrisfiles.com/2010/03/the-weekly-methane-from-the-deep-biofuel-from-the-sun/ as is the following text:
"Bubble, Bubble, Methane is Trouble: {original is bold} A vast storehouse of methane under the Arctic Ocean has perforated and is starting to leak, researchers disclosed. While scientists have long been preoccupied with methane release from thawing permafrost on mainland Siberia, the underwater stores in the adjoining East Siberian Arctic Shelf are much larger, and the release of even a small fraction could lead to a dramatic increase in global warming. "

It MAY already be too late to stop Earth from switching to its hot stable state. - A totally sterile Earth in a few thousand years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adoucette said:
The fact that CH4 is not increasing in the atmosphere since the 90s suggests strongly that the atmosphere is in equilibrium with CH4 and your fears are not warrented.
This "fact"--CH4 is not increasing--how does it account for the release of methane from melting tundra, which is happening and was also predicted?

How does the IPCC relate the ongong release to the "fact" that atmospheric methane concentrations haven't increased since the '90s?
It seems a bit confusing--methane is being released as the tundra melts, but methane concentrations aren't increasing. More tundra has melted since the '90s than prior to the '90s, but methane concentrations haven't increased??
 
We are used to hype in the Climate Debate.
Which is why one looks at the actual DATA.
And we find that CH4 atmospheric levels remain essentially flat, unlike that scary picture that Billy posted.
What we find is that article is about 1 year old, and yet a year later, you don't read so much about this amazing discovery anymore.

Then there is the findings around the BP oil spill and all the methane released (that leak was ~3to1 Methane to Oil)

http://geosciences.tamu.edu/hotlink...urned-to-near-normal-levels-in-gulf-of-mexico

The seafloor stores large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which has been suspected to be released naturally, modulating global climate. What the Deepwater Horizon incident has taught us is that releases of methane with similar characteristics will not have the capacity to influence climate.”

Arthur
 
Last edited:
This "fact"--CH4 is not increasing--how does it account for the release of methane from melting tundra, which is happening and was also predicted?

How does the IPCC relate the ongong release to the "fact" that atmospheric methane concentrations haven't increased since the '90s?
It seems a bit confusing--methane is being released as the tundra melts, but methane concentrations aren't increasing. More tundra has melted since the '90s than prior to the '90s, but methane concentrations haven't increased??

The Tundra isn't that large compared to the size of the globe.
The melting only occurs for a small part of the year.
CH4 is a well mixed gas.
No decrease in OH radicals seen in the atmosphere, thus the natural scrubbing is keeping up with any slight increase in CH4 release.
It takes a LOT of methane to have any impact on the PPM of CH4 in the atmosphere.

The radiative forcing of CH4 has remained pretty much constant since 1990

aggi_2010.fig4.png


Arthur
 
adoucette said:
And we find that CH4 atmospheric levels remain essentially flat.
The actual DATA say this?
Do the actual data explain why methane is being released from melting tundra, but atmospheric levels aren't increasing?

Is the constant level of methane connected to atmospheric levels of hydroxyl, and is hydroxyl concentration variable or constant? If methane levels exceed hydroxyl, what can be expected?

Or since the Arctic tundra "isn't all that large", does that mean we can "confidently predict" that atmospheric hydroxyl will remain at a level that "deals" with methane excess, for let's say "another century or so"?
 
two photos and more "scary quotes" have been added to post 369. Please have a second look, and comment.
 
The actual DATA say this?

Yes, see chart above.

Do the actual data explain why methane is being released from melting tundra, but atmospheric levels aren't increasing?

When people talk about Melting Tundra, they have to be clear, this is an effect in LATE SUMMER and doesn't last that long.

Is the constant level of methane connected to atmospheric levels of hydroxyl, and is hydroxyl concentration variable or constant? If methane levels exceed hydroxyl, what can be expected?

Yes, but as the ppb of methane increases it actually gets a bigger share of the hydroxyl radicals. Besides there are other methods of getting rid of it, depending on altitude, including the fact that a lot of bacteria EAT IT.

Or since the Arctic tundra "isn't all that large", does that mean we can "confidently predict" that atmospheric hydroxyl will remain at a level that "deals" with methane excess, for let's say "another century or so"?

Sorry, my crystal ball is in the shop, but climate scientists have known about Methane and Hydrates and Tundra for a LONG time and the IPCC reports don't exclude its impact.

Arthur
 
BillyT said:
two photos and more "scary quotes" have been added to post 369. Please have a second look, and comment.

What is extraordinary, is that based on my understanding of the physics alone, I suggested this could be very serious some years ago,
NSF.gif
For what they mean by "bursting up" - see photo below.
800px-Boiling_lake_in_Yellowstone_National_Park.jpg
This 2nd photo is from: http://theferrisfiles.com/2010/03/the-weekly-methane-from-the-deep-biofuel-from-the-sun/ as is the following text:
"Bubble, Bubble, Methane is Trouble: A vast storehouse of methane under the Arctic Ocean has perforated and is starting to leak,

EXCEPT Billy, that new SCARY picture you posted is from YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK.

LOL

Arthur
 
adoucette said:
but climate scientists have known about Methane and Hydrates and Tundra for a LONG time and the IPCC reports don't exclude its impact.
But not excluding the impact, and "knowing about" methane clathrates and melting tundra doesn't necessarily lead to a "confident prediction", does it?

The confidence is in fact based on a conservative approach that doesn't take account of data from "not well understood" or "new" science, such as ice-sheet dynamics which is really only a few decades old. Or the estimates of future methane emissions from tundra--not enough is known about these things so the IPCC simply doesn't use them, but "acknowledges" them instead.

So just how confident is the IPCC prediction? It's based on "solid" evidence and "good" climate models, but acknowledges there are factors which are excluded from the prediction. The confidence appears to be more about being able to make better predictions as the science matures. It has to be just a little presumptuous that after just three decades, climate science is now able to make 100 year forecasts "with confidence".
 
Last edited:
EXCEPT Billy, that new SCARY picture you posted is from YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK. LOL Arthur
but the caption under it in the original states it is CH4 bubbling up. I too noticed that the photo's source seems to be Yellowstone. That is why I also quoted the start of the article's text:

""Bubble, Bubble, Methane is Trouble: {original is bold} A vast storehouse of methane under the Arctic Ocean has perforated and is starting to leak, researchers disclosed. While scientists have long been preoccupied with methane release from thawing permafrost on mainland Siberia, the underwater stores in the adjoining East Siberian Arctic Shelf are much larger, and the release of even a small fraction could lead to a dramatic increase in global warming. ..."

Perhaps, only guessing, some Yellowstone park booklet reproduced it? Or perhaps they wanted a photo to illustrate their article and only had that one? I don't know why the photo's source seems to be Yellowstone. Where the photo comes from is not very important. The diagram above it is clearly from NSF and states that methane is "bursting into the atmosphere."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again I'd suggest you look into the data yourself.
CH4 levels in the atmosphere are stable and have been since the 90s.
If you want to find some actual evidence that Methane is INCREASING then post it.
Otherwise, CH4 continues to be LESS and LESS of a percent of the GHG forcing.

In 1979 CH4 represented 25% of the GHG forcing
in 1989 CH4 was 22%
in 1999 Ch4 was 20%
in 2009 CH4 was 18%

The trend is pretty clear and over a fairly long period of time.

Arthur
 
but the caption under it in the original states it is CH4 bubbling up. The source seems to be Yellowstone. That is why I also quoted the start of the article's text:

It's a HOT SPRING Billy, the water below it is BOILING, it is NOT methane gas.

But it IS scary (if it was in fact methane gas) and that's why you posted it.

Arthur
 
Back
Top