A Note: Global Warming Threads

[Trippy]

I'm disagreeing with adoucette's opinions. Opinions are not facts.
You've disagreed with him several times in this thread too.

What's your point?
I've also generally endeavoured to provide references and evidence to support my assertions.

I've also had rather extensive (and somewhat heated at times) discussions with BillyT as to why I think his Clathrate Bomb hypothesis is over exaggerated, and not going to happen.

 

[Trippy]

Arthur:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2007.hydrate_rev.pdf
Might be of interest to you.

 

[adoucette]

This is more a pedantism than anything else - according to the papers which I read, which I still owe you links to, which this is part of, the source, or part of the source of the methane on the siberian shelf is inundated permafrost IE the terrestrial permafrost on the land extends under the sea.

Yes, but hydrates don't exist at less then 300 meters below the surface and as you suggested, that 50 GT release in 1 year was based on a massive physical disturbance, not on AGW, so it's not relevant to this discussion (even if it would be a real bitch if it happened).

From your link, (Just skimmed it so far, but it looks good I'll read in closely later, thanks) a couple of summary points stood out:

Fortunately, most of the hydrate reservoir seems insolated
from the climate of the Earth’s surface, so that any melting
response will take place on time scales of millennia or
longer.

On the timescale of the coming century, it appears that most
of the hydrate reservoir will be insulated from anthropogenic
climate change. The exceptions are hydrate in permafrost
soils, especially those coastal areas, and in shallow ocean
sediments where methane gas is focused by subsurface migration.
The most likely response of these deposits to anthropogenic
climate change is an increased background rate
of chronic methane release, rather than an abrupt release.

No mechanism has been proposed whereby a significant
fraction of the Siberian permafrost hydrates could release
their methane catastrophically.

Arthur

 

[greenboy]

Sorry Trippy but the majority of guys in this forum request for links to support whatever S... you are talking about.
Now the Global Warming thing is just an Hoax... tO MAKE MONEY AND TO RAISE TAXES...

 

[Trippy]

Yes, but hydrates don't exist at less then 300 meters below the surface and as you suggested, that 50 GT release in 1 year was based on a massive physical disturbance, not on AGW, so it's not relevant to this discussion (even if it would be a real bitch if it happened).

Yes, I'm aware of that - remember, I pointed out landslides to you as a potential release mechanism, lowering sea levels and retreating ice caps have been other release mechanisms that have been posited, but they're not directly relevant either.

From your link, (Just skimmed it so far, but it looks good I'll read in closely later, thanks) a couple of summary points stood out:

Fortunately, most of the hydrate reservoir seems insolated
from the climate of the Earth’s surface, so that any melting
response will take place on time scales of millennia or
longer.

On the timescale of the coming century, it appears that most
of the hydrate reservoir will be insulated from anthropogenic
climate change. The exceptions are hydrate in permafrost
soils, especially those coastal areas, and in shallow ocean
sediments where methane gas is focused by subsurface migration.
The most likely response of these deposits to anthropogenic
climate change is an increased background rate
of chronic methane release, rather than an abrupt release.

No mechanism has been proposed whereby a significant
fraction of the Siberian permafrost hydrates could release
their methane catastrophically.

Arthur

Which mirrors what I said - and for a good reason, this is one of the papers that lead me to the conclusions that I formed on the matter.

 

[Trippy]

Ryskin forms an interesting... I'm not sure if counterpoint is quite the right word in all of this, but...
http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/methaneGeology.pdf
Consider Ryskin at the same time you consider Archer.

Addendum - I think that, to some extent, Ryskin may provide a missing link (of sorts) in the discussion so far.

 

[iceaura]

On the timescale of the coming century, it appears that most
of the hydrate reservoir will be insulated from anthropogenic
climate change. The exceptions are hydrate in permafrost
soils, especially those coastal areas, and in shallow ocean
sediments where methane gas is focused by subsurface migration.
The most likely response of these deposits to anthropogenic
climate change is an increased background rate
of chronic methane release, rather than an abrupt release.

The difference between "abrupt" and "increased background rate" is what, exactly?

At what level of increased rate does the word "abrupt" begin to apply?

Does it have any parallel with the difference between "catasrophic"

- as here, in the typical weasel role that such qualifiers play in denialist essays:

No mechanism has been proposed whereby a significant
fraction of the Siberian permafrost hydrates could release
their methane catastrophically.

and merely, like, really bad news?

And by "most likely response", are we talking about something borderline reasonable for such a significant and global really bad news couple of decades - say, ten million to one or better?

 

[Trippy]

The difference between "abrupt" and "increased background rate" is what, exactly?

At what level of increased rate does the word "abrupt" begin to apply?

Does it have any parallel with the difference between "catasrophic"

- as here, in the typical weasel role that such qualifiers play in denialist essays:

and merely, like, really bad news?

And by "most likely response", are we talking about something borderline reasonable for such a significant and global really bad news couple of decades - say, ten million to one or better?

Oh so very wrong, he's gone out of his way to make the science accessable to the average joe blogs.
http://www.realclimate.org/?author_name=david
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Understanding-David-Archer/dp/1405140399
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Thaw-Changing-Climate-Essentials/dp/0691136548
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crisis-Introductory-Guide-Change/dp/0521732557

Not only does he argue that AGW is real and happening, he argues that there is no such thing as a quick fix, and the anthropogenic perturbations of the climate may have lifetimes of thousands of years, or more.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/montenegro.2007.fate_CO2.pdf

Stop embaressing yourself with these knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Billy T]

The difference between "abrupt" and "increased background rate" is what, exactly?
At what level of increased rate does the word "abrupt" begin to apply?
Does it have any parallel with the difference between "catastrophic"...

I don't want to get into semantics, but there is a critical (unknown with any accuracy AFAIK) rate of CH4 release above which the concentration of OH radical in the troposphere begins to decrease and the mean lifetime of the CH4 correspondingly begins to increase. Leading to more rapid global warming, which can be and currently is a positive feedback system (Until the stored CH4 release rate does not increase with global warming.)

CH4 released from the surface is destroyed on it trip up thru the troposphere mainly by reaction with OH radical in process that converts the OH radical back into H2O. Each CH4 removes four OH radicals. Thus excessive release of CH4 can decrease its own destruction rate - that is the "critical" release rate. I.e. a CH4 flux into the lower troposphere greater than the OH flux into the top of the troposphere from the stratosphere tips a dynamically stable system into an unstable positive feed system.

The OH radical is produced ONLY in the stratosphere. (The harsh UV that splits H2O to produce it does not get down into the troposphere.) The temperature falls basically by the adiabatic laps rate from ground level to the top of the troposphere, but then the absorption of UV in the stratosphere make it start to rise again. In the wide minimum temperature band between them very little radiation originates as at no wavelength can it exceed what a black body at that temperature would radiate. As the black body radiation depends upon the fourth power of the temperature, this cold band produces very little. The escaping radiation mainly comes from below this cold band.

The mass of gas in the stratosphere and higher is much less than in the troposphere so to first order the radiation in the absorption band of CO2, and CH4 when its concentration is significant to effect radiative transfer (and it already is) has been absorbed and re-radiated (in a random direction, back downward as often as towards space) Thus the local intensity originating these "absorbed lines" also deceases with altitude in the troposphere and is locally proportional to the concentration of the absorbing molecules.

Thus, if the CH4 is not being destroyed at its release rate in the lower troposphere, the concentration will be increasing in the troposphere as will the absorption band radiation at all altitudes. I.e. Because 50% of the re-radiation is headed back towards the surface, less will escape and Earth will warm more rapidly. If this positive feedback system were to get a greater than unity loop gain that can be catastrophic unless the source of CH4 is exhausted before the Earth switches to its hot stable state (Venus like, but slightly cooler, but with a thick steam atmosphere which makes the planet sterile.)

 

[adoucette]

So Billy, besides yourself, what OTHER climate scientist is predicting that Earth will become Venus like?

LOL

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

Oh so very wrong, he's gone out of his way to make the science accessable to the average joe blogs.
- - -
Stop embaressing yourself with these knee-jerk reactions.

WTF? What are you talking about?

I am sorry to be so confusing to you, if that's what's happening, but you seem to be responding to somebody else's postings.

I don't want to get into semantics, but there is a critical (unknown with any accuracy AFAIK) rate of CH4 release above which the concentration of OH radical in the troposphere begins to decrease and the mean lifetime of the CH4 correspondingly begins to increase.

I was asking rhetorical questions, simply to point out the kinds of weaseling and deceptive qualifications that characterize these kinds of deflections.

The issue being why we have so much trouble discussing the physical realities involved. In that issue, semantics play a large role. In particular, a short term and self-limited but even temporarily positive feedback in methane release, touched off by the CO2 boost, that created a rapid and large increase in the "background rate" of methane release and consequent atmospheric concentration, is dangerous to us. It is dangerous whether it blows up into the Venusian catastrophe or not. It could easily have effects that most people would label "disaster", far short of sterilizing the planet. The use of bogus reassuring vocabulary, in particular approaches and descriptions that conceal the primary and continuing role of the anthro CO2 buildup in creating and exacerbating these risks, is political. Rhetorical. What used to be called Madison Avenue. It is not honest.

 

[Billy T]

So Billy, besides yourself, what OTHER climate scientist is predicting that Earth will become Venus like? LOL Arthur

Again please learn to read what I have said. I am growing tired of your sticking words in my mouth I never said.

... SUMMARY: I am not saying Earth is about to start the runaway process which converts it into the hot stable state. Only that this process very probably does exist and we do not know if we are close to the tipping point or not. I.e. PERHAPS 1 or 2 degrees rise, RAPIDLY ACHIEVED, due to man's unprecedented rate of CO2 release may sent Earth on an irreversible path to the hot stable state. The problem is complex, we simply do not know. ...

From: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2237458&postcount=86
For example in post above I have said I do not think it likely that Earth will turn into a cooler version of Venus. I only note that this is possible by the mechanism I have described, but there are many unknowns.

In several other posts, I have said the switch to a cooler version of Venus is "hopefully improbable" but we don't know.

I have repeatedly asked if anyone can show some reason why that switch is not possible.

 

[Trippy]

WTF? What are you talking about?

I am sorry to be so confusing to you, if that's what's happening, but you seem to be responding to somebody else's postings.

I was asking rhetorical questions, simply to point out the kinds of weaseling and deceptive qualifications that characterize these kinds of deflections.

The issue being why we have so much trouble discussing the physical realities involved. In that issue, semantics play a large role. In particular, a short term and self-limited but even temporarily positive feedback in methane release, touched off by the CO2 boost, that created a rapid and large increase in the "background rate" of methane release and consequent atmospheric concentration, is dangerous to us. It is dangerous whether it blows up into the Venusian catastrophe or not. It could easily have effects that most people would label "disaster", far short of sterilizing the planet. The use of bogus reassuring vocabulary, in particular approaches and descriptions that conceal the primary and continuing role of the anthro CO2 buildup in creating and exacerbating these risks, is political. Rhetorical. What used to be called Madison Avenue. It is not honest.

No. Your shock and awe tactics are dishonest.

I'm talking about this post:

The difference between "abrupt" and "increased background rate" is what, exactly?

At what level of increased rate does the word "abrupt" begin to apply?

Does it have any parallel with the difference between "catasrophic"

- as here, in the typical weasel role that such qualifiers play in denialist essays:

and merely, like, really bad news?

And by "most likely response", are we talking about something borderline reasonable for such a significant and global really bad news couple of decades - say, ten million to one or better?

If you had bothered to do even the smallest modicum of research for yourself, you would have learned why that particular language is used.

'Abrupt emission' and 'Chronic emission' were terminology originally used by prior authors in discussing the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis, and you would see that these terms a clearly defined in terms of time frames and the scenarios considered.

Your labeling of the paper of the paper as a 'denialist essay' is telling. Again, if you had bothered getting off your arse and doing even the slightest modicum of research into the paper, the authors other work, and other literature on the topic you would see that what you're suggesting is antipodal to the truth.

Pull your head in and stop making assinine assumptions.

 

[arfa brane]

I'm fascinated by people who "do some research" and decide--pretty much all by themselves--that there aren't any problems with climate change.

It's fascinating because: there are problems, there are lots of other people saying there aren't any problems, and there are scientists saying they don't know enough yet to say how much of a problem the problem is.

Someone like adoucette, for example, who insists there is plenty of room for error, is making a fundamental mistake. If that's true and there is room, why should anyone assume the "error" is going to be on the plus side?

He may be better read than some, but he's also second-guessing, and assuming things, which doesn't qualify as science. I don't need to post links to articles to see that; if nobody else can see this, despite my trying to bring it to their attention, what am I supposed to do, worry or something?

I'm afraid I seem to be unable to worry about other people's ability to understand what the problem is, and I do seem to be able to understand the problem. I see no need to "prove" any of this either, or worry about whether anyone else believes me.

 

[iceaura]

If you had bothered to do even the smallest modicum of research for yourself, you would have learned why that particular language is used.

'Abrupt emission' and 'Chronic emission' were terminology originally used by prior authors in discussing the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis, and you would see that these terms a clearly defined in terms of time frames and the scenarios considered.

The author of the post I responded to was adoucette. I quoted him. His use of "abrupt" and "increased background" (he did not use "chronic") was right here on this forum, in the service of the bullshit argument he was making right here, and I quoted it "adoucette" for direct reference in responding to adoucette's argument and post, so no punk ass grad student with a chip on his shoulder would get confused.

Your labeling of the paper of the paper as a 'denialist essay' is telling

Your mistake there is characteristic - not your first time.

Try and follow along in the future, and skip the personal shit in case you are making mistakes again, OK?

 

[adoucette]

I have repeatedly asked if anyone can show some reason why that switch is not possible.

Billy that's not the way this works.

I know of no reputable Climate Scientist or Scientific report that suggests that a possible outcome of our climate is what you describe: "Venus like, but slightly cooler, but with a thick steam atmosphere which makes the planet sterile".

Your assertion, you have the burden of proof.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Try and follow along in the future, and skip the personal shit in case you are making mistakes again, OK?

Damn it, another perfectly good IRONY meter destroyed by overload...

This post spiked the needle and broke the dial.....

LOL

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

The author of the post I responded to was adoucette. I quoted him. His use of "abrupt" and "increased background" (he did not use "chronic") was right here on this forum, in the service of the bullshit argument he was making right here, and I quoted it "adoucette" for direct reference in responding to adoucette's argument and post, so no punk ass grad student with a chip on his shoulder would get confused.
Your mistake there is characteristic - not your first time.

Try and follow along in the future, and skip the personal shit in case you are making mistakes again, OK?

Newsflash for you, Ice.
This post 2694103/623:

Yes, but hydrates don't exist at less then 300 meters below the surface and as you suggested, that 50 GT release in 1 year was based on a massive physical disturbance, not on AGW, so it's not relevant to this discussion (even if it would be a real bitch if it happened).

From your link, (Just skimmed it so far, but it looks good I'll read in closely later, thanks) a couple of summary points stood out:

Fortunately, most of the hydrate reservoir seems insolated
from the climate of the Earth’s surface, so that any melting
response will take place on time scales of millennia or
longer.

On the timescale of the coming century, it appears that most
of the hydrate reservoir will be insulated from anthropogenic
climate change. The exceptions are hydrate in permafrost
soils, especially those coastal areas, and in shallow ocean
sediments where methane gas is focused by subsurface migration.
The most likely response of these deposits to anthropogenic
climate change is an increased background rate
of chronic methane release, rather than an abrupt release.

No mechanism has been proposed whereby a significant
fraction of the Siberian permafrost hydrates could release
their methane catastrophically.

Arthur

Which is the post you are responding to, was itself a response to this post:
2694096/622

Arthur:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2007.hydrate_rev.pdf
Might be of interest to you.

And directly quotes the paper that I ORIGINALLY linked to.

Fortunately, most of the hydrate reservoir seems insolated
from the climate of the Earth’s surface, so that any melting
response will take place on time scales of millennia or
longer.

Section 3.3, last paragraph, Page 17 of the PDF (labled Pg 537).

On the timescale of the coming century, it appears that most
of the hydrate reservoir will be insulated from anthropogenic
climate change. The exceptions are hydrate in permafrost
soils, especially those coastal areas, and in shallow ocean
sediments where methane gas is focused by subsurface migration.
The most likely response of these deposits to anthropogenic
climate change is an increased background rate
of chronic methane release, rather than an abrupt release.

Section 4.5, First Paragraph, Page 18 (labled Pg 538)

No mechanism has been proposed whereby a significant
fraction of the Siberian permafrost hydrates could release
their methane catastrophically.

Section 4.2, Last Sentence, Page 17 (labled Pg 537)

The fact that he was quoting another source, I thought was quite clear from this statement:
"From your link, (Just skimmed it so far, but it looks good I'll read in closely later, thanks) a couple of summary points stood out:"

So it seems then it's not me that's "confused" and "not paying attention".

Now, at this point, I'm going to give you 24 hours to apologize, otherwise I'm going to give you at least a 24 hour 'break' from the forums to cool of and reconsider the situation.

 

[iceaura]

And directly quotes the paper that I ORIGINALLY linked to.

In the furtherance of his own argument here and throughout (which you do not address, and I deal with directly), and not using the specialized vocabulary you reference as key ("chronic emission"), and not in quoted format from the original, which I in turn am not quoting.

I use it just as he did, as expressing his viewpoint, and deal with it accordingly.

At no time do I "label" the original partial "summary" source essay, or put it in quoted format, or even mention it. I'm not arguing actual technical stuff with them or you, and certainly not with adoucette, who is clueless - and entrenched in his cluelessness now, partly by you.

You are simply not following the discussion he's having, and I'm having - which doesn't mean you couldn't contribute, or haven't, but does mean your personal insults and provocations are out of line.

Now, at this point, I'm going to give you 24 hours to apologize, otherwise I'm going to give you at least a 24 hour 'break' from the forums to cool of and reconsider the situation.

{Lessee: apologize to whom? He must mean himself. Really? Apparently. Humor the lad? Waste of time, loss of teachable moment}

I'll pass, thanks.

Main point: we have much to fear from the side effects of the anthro CO2 boost, especially as it continues. The risk of a methane boom, positive feedback leading to a rapid boost phase of radically increased "background" emission from the Arctic, is coming into serious play.

 

[Trippy]

In the furtherance of his own argument here and throughout (which you do not address, and I deal with directly), and not using the specialized vocabulary you reference as key ("chronic emission"), and not in quoted format from the original, which I in turn am not quoting.

I use it just as he did, as expressing his viewpoint, and deal with it accordingly.

At no time do I "label" the original partial "summary" source essay, or put it in quoted format, or even mention it. I'm not arguing actual technical stuff with them or you, and certainly not with adoucette, who is clueless - and entrenched in his cluelessness now, partly by you.

You are simply not following the discussion he's having, and I'm having - which doesn't mean you couldn't contribute, or haven't, but does mean your personal insults and provocations are out of line.
{Lessee: apologize to whom? He must mean himself. Really? Apparently. Humor the lad? Waste of time, loss of teachable moment}

I'll pass, thanks.

Main point: we have much to fear from the side effects of the anthro CO2 boost, especially as it continues. The risk of a methane boom, positive feedback leading to a rapid boost phase of radically increased "background" emission from the Arctic, is coming into serious play.

Goodbye.

See you in 24hrs when you've had a chance to think it through.