• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

New Anti-global warming debate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pixelsmith
  • Start date Start date

Free episodes:

Ah, but it has been proven here (with science, mind you and a 111 page document, et al) that their data was skewed and the earth is not in fact warming after all.

I hope you won't mind link to your mystery document here Bob. I need to sharpen my claws.

And there we have it. When you have run out of legitimate arguments, deny the evidence, make broad statements and start the personal attacks.

For the record Bob, I'm just warming up. You might even say that I haven't even started yet, as I've really just been laying out preliminary groundwork. I'm sorry you saw yourself -personally- attacked in my "denied by rational thinkers" bit, but I understand. Again, apologies.

I'm also sorry we won't be continuing with this distraction.
 
I hope you won't mind link to your mystery document here Bob. I need to sharpen my claws.

Schuyler posted it earlier, but here it is

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...rface_temp.pdf

---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

Oh, and Jonah, sorry to do this on such a bad day at the office for you, but here is another little gem.

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data - Times Online

I especially like these excerpts:
His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.

He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics.
(No conspiracy, huh Jonah?)

Such a trustworthy lot, this global warming crowd. Tsk-tsk.
 
Thanks Bob.

So let's take a look for a moment at the paper Schuyler refers us to. First, a quick Wiki glance at the "Science and Public Policy Institute" tells us right of the bat that:

"The Science and Public Policy Institute is not connected to the former Center for Science and Public Policy of the Frontiers of Freedom."


And yet the Executive Director of this institute is the former Executive Director at the Center for Science and Public Policy of said Frontiers of Freedom Foundation.

"The organization's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, who was listed as executive director of the Center for Science and Public Policy in the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation 2006 form 990<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup>.

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

Hmmmmmm

Next, let's take a look at the Institutes "Chief Science Advisor", Willie Soon.

"Willie Soon's publications have caused controversy<sup id="cite_ref-harvardcrimson2005_3-0" class="reference">[4]</sup> with editors resigning from a journal which published one of his papers.<sup id="cite_ref-goodess2003_4-0" class="reference">[5]</sup> Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute,<sup id="cite_ref-americanprospect_5-0" class="reference">[6]</sup> <sup id="cite_ref-harvard2003_6-0" class="reference">[7]</sup> a trade association.<sup id="cite_ref-NYT2005_7-0" class="reference">[8]</sup> Another paper coauthored by Soon started a heated debate with polar bear experts.<sup id="cite_ref-stirling2008_8-0" class="reference">[9]</sup>
"

Controversy?

In 2003 Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."<sup id="cite_ref-soon2003_2-1" class="reference">[3]</sup><sup> </sup>Shortly thereafter, 13 authors of papers cited by Soon and Baliunas disputed that interpretation of their work.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10]</sup> There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Soon and Baliunas study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">[11]</sup>
Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.<sup id="cite_ref-goodess2003_4-1" class="reference">[5]</sup> Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">[12]</sup>The study by Soon and Baliunas was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute, receiving a total of $53,000 from them.<sup id="cite_ref-harvardcrimson2005_3-1" class="reference">[4]</sup> At the time Soon and Baliunas were also paid consultants of the Marshall Institute.<sup id="cite_ref-harvardcrimson2005_3-2" class="reference">[4]</sup>

<sup id="cite_ref-harvardcrimson2005_3-2" class="reference"></sup>
<sup id="cite_ref-harvardcrimson2005_3-2" class="reference">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon</sup><sup id="cite_ref-harvardcrimson2005_3-2" class="reference">

</sup>
<sup id="cite_ref-harvardcrimson2005_3-2" class="reference">All of these organizations are funded in part by Exxon and Petroleum Money.

Who is Anthony Watts?

</sup>Anthony Watts is an American broadcast meteorologist, editor of the blog, Watts Up With That? (WUWT), owner of the weather graphics company ItWorks, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project that documents the siting of weather stations across the United States. He is a meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio.

AKA - He's an AM radio weatherman. Ummm, Okey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29


Who is Joseph D'Aleo?

Joseph (Joe) D'Aleo, is a retired meteorologist who is a well known climate change skeptic. He contributes to publications such as Tech Central Station, where he is described as "the first Director of Meteorology at the cable TV Weather Channel.

AKA- He's also a weatherman. Ummm, Okey

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D'Aleo

Ah, but it has been proven here (with science, mind you and a 111 page document, et al) that their data was skewed and the earth is not in fact warming after all. So, the very basis for their findings, and your arguments, was flawed.


So two TV/Radio weathermen write a paper funded by Exxon, it's blessed by Dr. Soon and that's the end of the Climate story. Is that what the deal is?

Ummm. Okey.
 
I have studied the issue as well as I can, and my conclusion is that the Global Warming Cult is based on false data and political motivations.
...and I would say the exact same about the Anti Global Warming side, playing right into the hands of huge business monopolies - those interested only in profit margins and 'freedom', what ever that means, but what it seems to mean here is 'the freedom to expect infinite economic growth, infinite energy resources and an infinite world in which we can do what ever we like without a thought to the consequences.'

Science has shown that most things are finite. The earth goes through cycles. But it can be tipped over the edge. It may survive such an event. We might not. So, it's not some Christian guilt thing - it's an intelligent strategy to make sure that we have a chance to survive.

Is there much peer reviewed scientific papers that are against the general global warming/climate change hypothesis? Not really. What does this point to? Conspiracy? Or just the fact that there is something to it?

I am not saying that you are all bad people because you think Global Warming is a fraud/may be happening, but who cares/it'll all be grand, etc. (not exactly sure what people believe), but there was an advertisement for exxon mobil a few years ago that used exactly that sort of simplistic interpretation 'CO2 is good for the Earth (duh! No one is saying it's not. But fats are good for our bodies in a regulated way. But you know what they say about too much of a good thing...). If there was a prize for evil corporation they'd probably get it. (Interestingly, they have ads out now saying that they are looking into alternative energy. Oh, the hypocrasy! But anything to make a quick buck, and in a cynical way it is a sort of good thing.)

People like Michael Crichton aren't given too much credence because he hasn't done any scientific research.
 
Okay Jonah so, what about the facts of the report, regardless of who wrote them? (Again, personal attacks on the authors, who have over 60 years of experience in meteorology).

Jonah, can't you see, they dropped the cold reading stations, took a new average, and said the earth is warming (for one thing).

(e.g. For illustration only)
Average temps 1900-1960
London 43
Moscow 39
New York 52
Paris 68
Dallas 84
Toronto 45
Shanghai 82
Sydney 78

So, Earth avg 1900-1960 = 61.38

For 1961 - 2000, lets drop Toronto, London, and Moscow

New York 53
Paris 67
Dallas 88
Shanghai 82
Sydney 78

So avg 1961-2000 = 73.6 - Oh my God! Average jumped more than 12 degrees!

That IS what happened.


This really is a religious debate. I am happy in my church. You stay in yours and I won't ever visit. Okey?
 
This really is a religious debate. I am happy in my church. You stay in yours and I won't ever visit. Okey?

I am actually intent on demolishing your church Bob. Just a heads up.

I do find it interesting that out of the whole of science - Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Climatology, etc etc, and all that's been scientifically proven, science without doubt or question, that some will seize on the actions of but a handful of scientist and shout liar at the top of there lungs all the while being in denial, embracing it in fact, that most of the so called "science" that comes from their side of the fence is funded solely by the petroleum industry. Most of the "papers" written are published exclusively by Exxon funded pseudo "Institutes" and "Foundations, for the sole reason that no one else will. Academia won't touch them with a ten foot pole, and those respected journals that do, soon learn to regret it, as shown above with Dr. Soon's "solar radiation" paper. I will go so far as to say that you would be very, very hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed, science journal published anywhere that disputes the role of carbon in controlling the temperature of the planet. Nor will you find a paper refuted the fact that the globe is warming.

You simply cannot deny the science. Unless, of course, you've got yer hat on.
 
I am actually intent on demolishing your church Bob. Just a heads up.

I do find it interesting that out of the whole of science - Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Climatology, etc etc, and all that's been scientifically proven, science without doubt or question, that some will seize on the actions of but a handful of scientist and shout liar at the top of there lungs all the while being in denial, embracing it in fact, that most of the so called "science" that comes from their side of the fence is funded solely by the petroleum industry. Most of the "papers" written are published exclusively by Exxon funded pseudo "Institutes" and "Foundations, for the sole reason that no one else will. Academia won't touch them with a ten foot pole, and those respected journals that do, soon learn to regret it, as shown above with Dr. Soon's "solar radiation" paper. I will go so far as to say that you would be very, very hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed, science journal published anywhere that disputes the role of carbon in controlling the temperature of the planet. Nor will you find a paper refuted the fact that the globe is warming.

You simply cannot deny the science. Unless, of course, you've got yer hat on.

Wow... you are light years behind on this subject. Please catch up so we can debate this properly.
 
Academia won't touch them with a ten foot pole

Well I hope not. Academia is who just got caught with their pants down and admitted to covering up the real temperature readings and deliberately lying about shrinking glaciers that were not shrinking. After all, I want these papers to maintain their integrity.
 
This has recently been re-done and updated. the guy is kind of a motor-mouth, but the cool thing is that he explains the orthodox view before he covers the skeptical view:

<object width="400" height="300">


<embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8865909&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></object>
.

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 AM ----------

The house of cards continue to fall on the Global Warming Hoax. This is exactly what Warren (post above) is saying in his analysis, that the entire case on Global Warming hinges on a positive feedback loop that does not exist. That this was published in Nature, a prestigious peer-reviewed periodical that has been historically antagonistic to the skeptics, is huge.

from ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO<sub>2</sub> records spanning the past millennium.


The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.
Climate warming causes many changes in the global carbon cycle, with the net effect generally considered to be an increase in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> with increasing temperature — in other words, a positive feedback between temperature and CO<sub>2</sub>. Uncertainty in the magnitude of this feedback has led to a wide range in projections of current global warming: about 40% of the uncertainty in these projections comes from this source.


Recent attempts to quantify the feedback by examining the co-variation of pre-industrial climate and CO<sub>2</sub> records yielded estimates of about 40 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) CO<sub>2</sub> per degree Celsius, which would imply significant amplification of current warming trends.


In this week’s Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO<sub>2</sub> data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO<sub>2</sub> per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.
The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO<sub>2</sub> per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.

Journal Reference:

  1. David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Büntgen, Valerie Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, & Fortunat Joos. Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate. Nature, 2010; 463 (7280): 527 DOI: 10.1038/nature08769
 
from ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.

Wow, Schuyler. Thank you for that post. I will watch the video next.

The article is profound, hurling silver bullets that riddle the vampirical Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" argument full of holes.

(Yes I know that vampires need wooden stakes, but it just sounded good. Work with me, here.)
 
This has recently been re-done and updated. the guy is kind of a motor-mouth, but the cool thing is that he explains the orthodox view before he covers the skeptical view

This guy, Warren, is also a former Exxon project engineer. Is there anything that you offer here that -doesn't- have Exxon's fingerprints on it somewhere in the background?

The house of cards continue to fall on the Global Warming Hoax. This is exactly what Warren (post above) is saying in his analysis, that the entire case on Global Warming hinges on a positive feedback loop that does not exist. That this was published in Nature, a prestigious peer-reviewed periodical that has been historically antagonistic to the skeptics, is huge.

The "house of cards" falls only in your imagination friend. If you read the piece, nowhere is warming denied nor are feedback loops dismissed. And no, the article does -not- represent "exactly what Warren has been saying"

Nature 463, 527 (2010). doi:10.1038/nature08769

Authors: David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Büntgen, Valerie Trouet, Benjamin Stocker & Fortunat Joos

"The processes controlling the carbon flux and carbon storage of the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial biosphere are temperature sensitive and are likely to provide a positive feedback leading to amplified anthropogenic warming. Owing to this feedback, at timescales ranging from interannual to the 20–100-kyr cycles of Earth's orbital variations, warming of the climate system causes a net release of CO2 into the atmosphere; this in turn amplifies warming. But the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global carbon cycle (termed γ), and thus of its positive feedback strength, is under debate, giving rise to large uncertainties in global warming projections. Here we quantify the median γ as 7.7 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C warming, with a likely range of 1.7–21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C. Sensitivity experiments exclude significant influence of pre-industrial land-use change on these estimates. Our results, based on the coupling of a probabilistic approach with an ensemble of proxy-based temperature reconstructions and pre-industrial CO2 data from three ice cores, provide robust constraints for γ on the policy-relevant multi-decadal to centennial timescales. By using an ensemble of >200,000 members, quantification of γ is not only improved, but also likelihoods can be assigned, thereby providing a benchmark for future model simulations. Although uncertainties do not at present allow exclusion of γ calculated from any of ten coupled carbon–climate models, we find that γ is about twice as likely to fall in the lowermost than in the uppermost quartile of their range. Our results are incompatibly lower (P < 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ∼40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ∼80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming."

Access : Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate : Nature

So you are for climate modeling when it seems to prove your misunderstood point (feedback loops don't exist), but against it when doesn't?

You know, I have yet to present my case. I had hoped to engage Pixelsmith in a robust debate (which I don't think he -really-wanted in the first place) but now it seems I find myself simply trying to wade through the BS that's constantly thrown into this thread. I find this to be a form of censure. So, i think I'll withdraw for the moment, let you all get your ya-ya's out and return at some point when the thread has quieted down. If again, at that point, I'm not allowed to proceed somewhat uninterrupted, the tactic will be quite obvious to all who've read the thread this far. The reader can then be the judge....
 
So, i think I'll withdraw for the moment, let you all get your ya-ya's out and return at some point when the thread has quieted down. If again, at that point, I'm not allowed to proceed somewhat uninterrupted, the tactic will be quite obvious to all who've read the thread this far. The reader can then be the judge....

So you want to be "uninterrupted" in a forum? What the hell does that mean? Did someone reach through the internet and grab your hand while you were typing? Your post can be as long as it needs to be.



Now it's your turn for a fitting image, Jonah...

crybaby.jpg
 
Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane

Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point. Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.
They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.
Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: "High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions."

Global warming is occurring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates. Palmer said: "This study does not show the Arctic has passed a tipping point, but it should open people's eyes. It shows there is a positive feedback and that higher temperatures bring higher emissions and faster warming."
The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady.
The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. The increase represents about 1m extra tonnes of methane each year. Palmer cautioned that the five-year increase was too short to call a definitive trend.

The findings are part of a wider study of methane emissions from global wetlands, such as paddy fields, marshes and bogs. To identify where methane was released, the researchers combined methane levels in the atmosphere with surface temperature changes. They did not measure methane emissions directly, but used satellite measurements of variations in groundwater depth, which alter the way bacteria break down organic matter to release or consume methane.
They found that just over half of all methane emissions came from the tropics, with some 20m tonnes released from the Amazon river basin each year, and 26m tonnes from the Congo basin. Rice paddy fields across China and south and south-east Asia produced just under one-third of global methane, some 33m tonnes. Just 2% of global methane comes from Arctic latitudes, the study found, though the region showed the largest increases. The 31% rise in methane emissions there from 2003-07 was enough to help lift the global average increase to 7%.

Palmer said: "Our study reinforces the idea that satellites can pinpoint changes in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from a particular place on earth. This opens the door to quantifying greenhouse gas emissions made from a variety of natural and man-made sources." Palmer said it was a "disgrace" that so few satellites were launched to monitor levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. He said it was unclear whether the team would be able to continue the methane monitoring in future. The pair of satellites used to analyse water, known as Grace, are already over their expected mission life time, while a European version launched last year, called Goce, is scheduled to fly for less than two years. The new study follows repeated warnings that even modest levels of global warming could trigger huge increases in methane release from permafrost. Phillipe Ciais, a researcher with the Laboratory for Climate Sciences and the Environment in Gif-sur-Yvette, France, told a scientific meeting in Copenhagen last March that billions of tonnes could be released by just a 2C average global rise.

More on methane

While carbon dioxide gets most of the attention in the global warming debate, methane is pound-for-pound a more potent greenhouse gas, capable of trapping some 20 times more heat than CO2. Although methane is present in much lower quantities in the atmosphere, its potency makes it responsible for about one-fifth of man-made warming. The gas is found in natural gas deposits and is generated naturally by bacteria that break down organic matter, such as in the guts of farm animal. About two-thirds of global methane comes from man-made sources, and levels have more than doubled since the industrial revolution. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane lasts only a decade or so in the atmosphere, which has led some experts to call for greater attention to curbs on its production. Reductions in methane emissions could bring faster results in the fight against climate change, they say.


 
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~karin/140/articles/MethaneHydrates.pdf

DOE Meeting Summary
by Alvia Gaskill

http://www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org/DOE-Meeting/Catastrophic-
Methane-Hydrate-Release/ag14.html

Catastrophic Methane Hydrate Release Mitigation

This topic falls under the category of abrupt climate change as will be clear shortly. Methane hydrates or clathrates are combinations of water and methane in the form of an ice-like matrix. The methane is the result of the action of methanogenic bacteria on sediment over thousands of years. The methane is kept in an ice form where appropriate combinations of temperature and pressure exist. Methane hydrates are widespread in sea sediments hundreds of meters below the sea floor along the outer continental margins and are also found in Arctic permafrost. Some deposits are close to the ocean floor and at water depths as shallow as 150 m, although at low latitudes they are generally only found below 500 m. The deposits can be 300-600 m thick and cover large horizontal areas. A nearby deposit nearly 500 km in length is found along the Blake Ridge off the coast of N.C. at depths of 2000-4000 m.

The total quantity of methane hydrates in the ocean sediment is estimated to be around 10,000 GtC. The methane hydrates in sediment considered part of U.S. territory alone could supply U.S. natural gas needs for 1000 years. Because of this enormous quantity, methane hydrates are being investigated as an energy source to replace petroleum and conventional sources of natural gas, although an extraction technology for ocean sediments does not presently exist. There is some evidence that massive releases of methane from ocean sediment hydrate deposits may have been indirectly responsible for ending some of the ice ages. Were such releases to occur today because of warming of the oceans or as a result of seismic events, the result could be a sudden rise in atmospheric temperature, triggering feedback mechanisms that might lead to rapid melting of polar ice.

In the slides, the example of a 1 GtC release was used. That represents 0.01% of the total methane hydrates in the ocean. The quantity degassed to the atmosphere 15,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age is now believed to be around 4 GtC as methane or 0.04%. The average temperature of the Earth increased from 30°F to 60°F within a few decades. The radiative forcing from the methane alone would have been insufficient to cause more than a 3°F increase. It is thought that feedback effects from additional methane released from melting permafrost, carbon dioxide and water vapor contributed to the rest of the warming. But the initial methane hydrate release from the ocean may have been the catalyst. All of the conditions that may have led to the methane hydrate release 15,000 years ago do not exist today. Sea levels were much lower and thus, the pressure on the sediments was less. However, there is some evidence that ocean currents that impinge on ocean sediments are getting warmer, especially in the Arctic. Global warming is thus a possible triggering mechanism for massive methane hydrate release in today’s climate.

What causes release of methane hydrates is still poorly understood. Warm waters may destabilize the hydrate zone. Hydrates on the surface of the ocean floor on a ridge may then degass. The sediment may then become unstable and slide down the ridge, exposing other layers of methane hydrate, accelerating the release. As an example, the Storegga slump off the coast of Norway 8000 years ago could have released between 1 and 4 GtC as methane. Alternatively, an undersea earthquake today, say off the Blake Ridge or the coast of Japan or California might loosen and cause some of the sediment to slide down the ridge or slump, exposing the hydrate layer to the warmer water. That in turn could cause a chain reaction of events, leading to the release of massive quantities of methane.

Another possibility is drilling and other activities related to exploration and recovery of methane hydrates as an energy resource. The hydrates tend to occur in the pores of sediment and help to bind it together. Attempting to remove the hydrates may cause the sediment to collapse and release the hydrates. So, it may not take thousands of years to warm the ocean and the sediments enough to cause massive releases, only lots of drilling rigs.

Returning to the 4 GtC release scenario, assume such a release occurs over a one year period sometime in the next 50 years as result of slope failure. According to the Report of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee, “Catastrophic slope failure appears to be necessary to release a sufficiently large quantity of methane rapidly enough to be transported to the atmosphere without significant oxidation or dissolution.” In this event, methane will enter the atmosphere as methane gas. It will have a residence time of several decades and a global warming potential of 62 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

This would be the equivalent of 248 GtC as carbon dioxide or 31 times the annual man-made GHG emissions of today. Put another way, this would have the impact of nearly 30 years worth of GHG warming all at once. The result would almost certainly be a rapid rise in the average air temperature, perhaps as much as 3°F immediately. This might be tolerable if that’s as far as things go. But, just like 15,000 years ago, if the feedback mechanisms kick in, we can expect rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice and an overall temperature increase of 30°F. For point of reference, the average temperature of the Earth (atmosphere, land and top layer of the ocean) in 2004 is around 60°F. The methane hydrate release projected here would raise the temperature to around 90°F or more. Such high temperatures would undoubtedly destabilize all of the other methane hydrates in the ocean and arctic permafrost, some 10,000 GtC or 620,000 GtC equivalent as carbon dioxide. This would have the impact of 78,000 years worth of GHG warming over a few decades. The temperatures reached and sustained would most likely cause a rapid die off in ocean phytoplankton and other sea life as well as most land plants and animals, including humans. The result would be a mass extinction and mark a major transition point in the Earth’s geological history. Although a 1000 or 10,000 GtC methane release in one year or over several decades is very unlikely, a 4 GtC release is entirely plausible. Even if the feedback mechanisms that were operative 15,000 years ago became partly active, the outcome could be just as disastrous as the scenario outlined above. Gaskill said that if any massive releases of methane from methane hydrates were to occur, attempts should be made to ignite and burn the methane gas at the ocean’s surface. By converting the methane to carbon dioxide, the threat of abrupt climate change is reduced by a factor of 62, to less than one-years worth of GHG emissions. Even if the mitigation effort is only partly successful, say 75% is converted to carbon dioxide, the remaining methane, equivalent to an 8-year pulse of all present day GHG emissions in a single year might still spell trouble, but it would be far preferable to the nightmare scenarios outlined above. Combustion could be accomplished by aerial release and ignition of distillate fuel over the area where the methane is entering the atmosphere. There are several potential problems with this approach. The area to be covered may be too large to effectively treat in this way. Advection may also make continuous burning difficult. Dr. MacCracken pointed out that the methane level in the air at the surface might be too low to ignite. This would, of course depend on how fast the gas is being released.

Regardless, the potential for massive methane release from sediments represents such a significant threat that emergency mitigation plans like the one suggested here need to be prepared. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, Public Law 106-193 does not address such catastrophic scenarios and we are unaware of anyone working on such plans
 
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~karin/140/articles/MethaneHydrates.pdf

DOE Meeting Summary
by Alvia Gaskill

http://www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org/DOE-Meeting/Catastrophic-
Methane-Hydrate-Release/ag14.html

Catastrophic Methane Hydrate Release Mitigation

This topic falls under the category of abrupt climate change as will be clear shortly. Methane hydrates or clathrates are combinations of water and methane in the form of an ice-like matrix. The methane is the result of the action of methanogenic bacteria on sediment over thousands of years. The methane is kept in an ice form where appropriate combinations of temperature and pressure exist. Methane hydrates are widespread in sea sediments hundreds of meters below the sea floor along the outer continental margins and are also found in Arctic permafrost. Some deposits are close to the ocean floor and at water depths as shallow as 150 m, although at low latitudes they are generally only found below 500 m. The deposits can be 300-600 m thick and cover large horizontal areas. A nearby deposit nearly 500 km in length is found along the Blake Ridge off the coast of N.C. at depths of 2000-4000 m.

The total quantity of methane hydrates in the ocean sediment is estimated to be around 10,000 GtC. The methane hydrates in sediment considered part of U.S. territory alone could supply U.S. natural gas needs for 1000 years. Because of this enormous quantity, methane hydrates are being investigated as an energy source to replace petroleum and conventional sources of natural gas, although an extraction technology for ocean sediments does not presently exist. There is some evidence that massive releases of methane from ocean sediment hydrate deposits may have been indirectly responsible for ending some of the ice ages. Were such releases to occur today because of warming of the oceans or as a result of seismic events, the result could be a sudden rise in atmospheric temperature, triggering feedback mechanisms that might lead to rapid melting of polar ice.

In the slides, the example of a 1 GtC release was used. That represents 0.01% of the total methane hydrates in the ocean. The quantity degassed to the atmosphere 15,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age is now believed to be around 4 GtC as methane or 0.04%. The average temperature of the Earth increased from 30°F to 60°F within a few decades. The radiative forcing from the methane alone would have been insufficient to cause more than a 3°F increase. It is thought that feedback effects from additional methane released from melting permafrost, carbon dioxide and water vapor contributed to the rest of the warming. But the initial methane hydrate release from the ocean may have been the catalyst. All of the conditions that may have led to the methane hydrate release 15,000 years ago do not exist today. Sea levels were much lower and thus, the pressure on the sediments was less. However, there is some evidence that ocean currents that impinge on ocean sediments are getting warmer, especially in the Arctic. Global warming is thus a possible triggering mechanism for massive methane hydrate release in today’s climate.

What causes release of methane hydrates is still poorly understood. Warm waters may destabilize the hydrate zone. Hydrates on the surface of the ocean floor on a ridge may then degass. The sediment may then become unstable and slide down the ridge, exposing other layers of methane hydrate, accelerating the release. As an example, the Storegga slump off the coast of Norway 8000 years ago could have released between 1 and 4 GtC as methane. Alternatively, an undersea earthquake today, say off the Blake Ridge or the coast of Japan or California might loosen and cause some of the sediment to slide down the ridge or slump, exposing the hydrate layer to the warmer water. That in turn could cause a chain reaction of events, leading to the release of massive quantities of methane.

Another possibility is drilling and other activities related to exploration and recovery of methane hydrates as an energy resource. The hydrates tend to occur in the pores of sediment and help to bind it together. Attempting to remove the hydrates may cause the sediment to collapse and release the hydrates. So, it may not take thousands of years to warm the ocean and the sediments enough to cause massive releases, only lots of drilling rigs.

Returning to the 4 GtC release scenario, assume such a release occurs over a one year period sometime in the next 50 years as result of slope failure. According to the Report of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee, “Catastrophic slope failure appears to be necessary to release a sufficiently large quantity of methane rapidly enough to be transported to the atmosphere without significant oxidation or dissolution.” In this event, methane will enter the atmosphere as methane gas. It will have a residence time of several decades and a global warming potential of 62 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

This would be the equivalent of 248 GtC as carbon dioxide or 31 times the annual man-made GHG emissions of today. Put another way, this would have the impact of nearly 30 years worth of GHG warming all at once. The result would almost certainly be a rapid rise in the average air temperature, perhaps as much as 3°F immediately. This might be tolerable if that’s as far as things go. But, just like 15,000 years ago, if the feedback mechanisms kick in, we can expect rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice and an overall temperature increase of 30°F. For point of reference, the average temperature of the Earth (atmosphere, land and top layer of the ocean) in 2004 is around 60°F. The methane hydrate release projected here would raise the temperature to around 90°F or more. Such high temperatures would undoubtedly destabilize all of the other methane hydrates in the ocean and arctic permafrost, some 10,000 GtC or 620,000 GtC equivalent as carbon dioxide. This would have the impact of 78,000 years worth of GHG warming over a few decades. The temperatures reached and sustained would most likely cause a rapid die off in ocean phytoplankton and other sea life as well as most land plants and animals, including humans. The result would be a mass extinction and mark a major transition point in the Earth’s geological history. Although a 1000 or 10,000 GtC methane release in one year or over several decades is very unlikely, a 4 GtC release is entirely plausible. Even if the feedback mechanisms that were operative 15,000 years ago became partly active, the outcome could be just as disastrous as the scenario outlined above. Gaskill said that if any massive releases of methane from methane hydrates were to occur, attempts should be made to ignite and burn the methane gas at the ocean’s surface. By converting the methane to carbon dioxide, the threat of abrupt climate change is reduced by a factor of 62, to less than one-years worth of GHG emissions. Even if the mitigation effort is only partly successful, say 75% is converted to carbon dioxide, the remaining methane, equivalent to an 8-year pulse of all present day GHG emissions in a single year might still spell trouble, but it would be far preferable to the nightmare scenarios outlined above. Combustion could be accomplished by aerial release and ignition of distillate fuel over the area where the methane is entering the atmosphere. There are several potential problems with this approach. The area to be covered may be too large to effectively treat in this way. Advection may also make continuous burning difficult. Dr. MacCracken pointed out that the methane level in the air at the surface might be too low to ignite. This would, of course depend on how fast the gas is being released.

Regardless, the potential for massive methane release from sediments represents such a significant threat that emergency mitigation plans like the one suggested here need to be prepared. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, Public Law 106-193 does not address such catastrophic scenarios and we are unaware of anyone working on such plans

What? no Nitrous Oxide fear mongering to go with that? Or how about ocean acidification? If we are to be so worried about these GHGs then we should consider drying up our wet lands. They emit more GHGs than all human activity.
 
Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups

The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy. The move comes ahead of the firm's annual meeting today in Dallas, at which prominent shareholders including the Rockefeller family will urge ExxonMobil to take the problem of climate change more seriously. Green campaigners accuse the company of funding a "climate denial industry" over the last decade, with $23m (£11.5m) handed over to groups that play down the risks of burning fossil fuels. The ExxonMobil report says:

"In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."

Nine groups have reportedly lost the company's support, including the George C Marshall Institute, the Washington DC-based think tank that asserts there is no scientific consensus on climate change, and that changes in the sun, not greenhouse gases, could be responsible for rising temperatures. A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006 the society wrote to the company to ask them to stop funding such groups. Kert Davies of Greenpeace said:

"The organisations eliminated in this latest rounds of cuts could be called the engine room of the climate sceptic industry, but if Rex Tillerson [head of ExxonMobil] is serious about his company shaking off this shameful legacy, he needs to make a wider sweep." Greenpeace says ExxonMobil continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels

And, as shown above, they simply change up the name, re-appoint the same directors and then claim how they are not affiliated with the petroleum industry. And then continue with more corporate asshatery. A great example of this occurred a few months back when AL Gore spoke in Florida last November.

Climate Speech Draws Hundreds, Hecklers Protesters Jeer Gore's Boca Speech

Who exactly are the "Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow"? They are directed by Bill Gilles, who is leads the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow(CFACT)

CFACT is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit group under the of code of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup> On its website, CFACT does not disclose its corporate or foundation funders.<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7]</sup> Media Transparency calculates that between 1991 and 2006 CFACT gained $1,280,000 from 18 grants from only two foundations -- the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8]</sup> The Carthage Foundation granted $1,105,000 to CFACT between 1991 - 2006, while the Sarah Scaife Foundation sent $175,000 to the group between 1996 - 2001.

On its website tracking grants to groups, the conservative Capital Research Center listed CFACT as having received grants of $60,500 from Chevron between 1994 and 1998. (The CRC lists the grants comprising $16,000 in each of 1994, 1995 and 1996 and $12,500 in 1998). The CRC also listed CFACT from having received $25,000 from DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund $25,000 and a token $500 from the Ford Motor Company Fund.<sup id="cite_ref-CRC_8-0" class="reference">[9]</sup> ExxonMobil contributed $5,000 in each of 1997 and 1998.<sup id="cite_ref-CRC_8-1" class="reference">[9]</sup> Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website adds that Exxon has contributed a further $577,000 between 2000 and 2007.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10]</sup>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow

So if you think the asshats at Exxon somehow became born again in the spring of 2008 wrt AGW, think again....of course, you don't read -that- in the newspapers. You don't read it in this thread either (except when I post it). So either the posters here who keep offering up Exxon funded research are either completely ignorant of Petroleum Industry propaganda efforts and should be dismissed -OR- they know exactly where the papers come from and just choose not to let people (you) know the true source of the info...oil $$$$$.

I always get a chuckle when the pot calls the kettle black.

images







 
Wow Jonah, you sure do have it in for Exxon-Mobil.

I have an idea, why don't you do your part to put them out of business. All you have to do is agree to stop using any products that rely on petroleum. Here is a short list of them. Will you agree to that?

ammonia
air conditioners
anesthetics
antifreeze
antihistamines
antiseptics
artificial limbs
artificial turf
asphalt
aspirin
awnings
balloons
ballpoint pens
bandages
basketballs
bearing grease
bicycle tires
boats
bottles
bras
bubble gum
butane
cameras
candles
car batteries
car battery cases
car bodies
car enamel
carpet
cassette tapes
caulking
cd player
cd's
chewing gum
clothes
clothesline
cold cream
combs/brushes
computers
contacts
cortisone
crayons
cream
curtains
dashboards
denture adhesive
dentures
deodorant
detergents
dice
diesel
dishes
dishwasher
dishwashing liquid
drinking cups
dryers
dyes
electric blankets
electrician’s tape
enamel
epoxy
eyeglasses
fan belts
faucet washers
fertilizers
fishing boots
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
folding doors
food preservatives
football cleats
football helmets
gasoline
glues
golf bags
golf balls
guitar strings
hair
hair coloring
hair curlers
hand lotion
hearing aids
heart valves
heating oil
house paint
ice chests
ice cube trays
ink
insect repellent
insecticides
insulation
jet fuel
life jackets
linings
linoleum
lip balm
lipstick
loudspeakers
luggage
medicines
model cars
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmet
movie film
nail polish
nylon rope
oil filters
paddles
paint
paint brushes
paint rollers
panty hose
parachutes
paraffin
pens
percolators
perfumes
petroleum jelly
pillows
plastic chairs
plastic cups
plastic forks
plastic wood
plastic wrap
plastics
plywood adhesives
purses
putty
refrigerant
refrigerators
roller-skate wheels
roofing
roofing paper
rubber bands
rubber boots
rubber cement
rubbing alcohol
rubbish bags
running shoes
saccharine
safety glasses
seals
shag rugs
shampoo
shaving cream
shirts (non-cotton)
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
skis
slacks
soap
soft contact lenses
solvents
speakers
spectacles
sports car bodies
stereos
sun glasses
surf boards
sweaters
synthetic rubber
table tennis balls
tape recorders
telephones
tennis rackets
tents
thermos
tights
tires
toilet seats
toners
tool boxes
tool racks
toothbrushes
toothpaste
transparencies
transparent tape
trash bags
tv cabinets
typewriter/computer ribbons
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
volleyballs
water pipes
water skis
wax
wax paper
wheels
yarn
 
Back
Top