All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Randolph Kinney]

Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change
By: Carolyn D. Ruppel (U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA) © 2011 Nature Education

Citation: Ruppel, C. D. (2011) Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):29

As the evidence for warming climate became better established in the latter part of the 20th century (IPCC 2001), some scientists raised the alarm that large quantities of methane (CH4) might be liberated by widespread destabilization of climate-sensitive gas hydrate deposits trapped in marine and permafrost-associated sediments (Bohannon 2008, Krey et al. 2009, Mascarelli 2009). Even if only a fraction of the liberated CH4 were to reach the atmosphere, the potency of CH4 as a greenhouse gas (GHG) and the persistence of its oxidative product (CO2) heightened concerns that gas hydrate dissociation could represent a slow tipping point (Archer et al. 2009) for Earth's contemporary period of climate change.

Methane Hydrate Primer

Methane hydrate is an ice-like substance formed when CH4 and water combine at low temperature (up to ~25ºC) and moderate pressure (greater than 3-5 MPa, which corresponds to combined water and sediment depths of 300 to 500 m). Globally, an estimated 99% of gas hydrates occurs in the sediments of marine continental margins at saturations as high as 20% to 80% in some lithologies; the remaining 1% is mostly associated with sediments in and beneath areas of high-latitude, continuous permafrost (McIver 1981, Collett et al. 2009). Nominally, methane hydrate concentrates CH4 by ~164 times on a volumetric basis compared to gas at standard pressure and temperature. Warming a small volume of gas hydrate could thus liberate large volumes of gas.

A challenge for assessing the impact of contemporary climate change on methane hydrates is continued uncertainty about the size of the global gas hydrate inventory and the portion of the inventory that is susceptible to climate warming. This paper addresses the latter issue, while the former remains under active debate. Dickens (2011) recently estimated 7x102 to 1.27x104 Gt carbon (Gt C) to be sequestered in marine gas hydrates alone, while Shakhova et al. (2010a) estimate 3.75x102 Gt C in methane hydrates just on the East Siberian Arctic shelf (ESAS). A conservative estimate (Boswell & Collett 2011) for the global gas hydrate inventory is ~1.8x103 Gt C, corresponding to CH4 volume of ~3.0x1015 m3 if CH4 density is taken as 0.717 kg/m3. In the unlikely event that 0.1% (1.8 Gt C) of this CH4 were instantaneously released to the atmosphere, CH4 concentrations would increase to ~2900 ppb from the 2005 value of ~1774 ppb (IPCC 2007).

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...ates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790

Notice that the release of methane follows the rise of temperature. Is that strange? No and neither is the release of CO2 with rising temperatures.

The earth has been warming since the mini ice age of the 1600s. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

 

[Meandering]

Uhmm,

If we start a global "Share the Air" campaign, how long will it take for the air heads to recognize that,

Solar frames, windmill supports, inverter guts and generator parts are made from steel,

which you can't make with sunshine?


.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

So Terrell points out that the six hottest years have been in the past 100+ years. Hmmmm! What can you deny about that fact?

Huh? They didn't have even a semi-accurate thermometer until the 19th century. Many of the old thermometers were scaled from 0 to 65. When the papers talk about the "hottest year on record" check the first year that they start. Some claim 1880, others 1975 as the "baseline". Krakatoa affected the climate temperature well into the 20th century. We only came out of the "Little Ice Age" in 1850's.

Others will claim NOAA sources that the top 10 years were all since 1998, but dig into the NOAA records and NOAA does not really say that. 2014 could be the hottest year on record, but that temperature is well within the margin of error so it might not be and that is the same thing that can be said for the years previous in large measure. In fact, NOAA scientists say "There's a 62 percent chance that 2014 was NOT actually the warmest year since 1880."

These "hot" years are all from 1998 on and that coincides with the closing of a large percentage of meteorological stations in Russia...particularly in Siberia...you know that "cold" place.

Most scientists - including Koch financed ones- recognize that the earth has warmed since the little Ice Age. In the past 12,000 we have went from a sub-tundra covered in ice sheets to our current and ever changing climate. Bonneville salt flats used to be Lake Bonneville; the scablands of Washington state were washout from giant floods when the ice dams broke as the glacial sheets retreated. But warming clearly predates the large power plants that are accused of producing "green house" gases and to blame "global warming" on man entirely is a joke.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

In fact, NOAA scientists say "There's a 62 percent chance that 2014 was NOT actually the warmest year since 1880."

Most scientists - including Koch financed ones- recognize that the earth has warmed since the little Ice Age.

Ah, it's the magic of imaginary numbers. Averaging the averages to 0.0001 pretend precision.

 

[Elliott]

NASA and 97% of scientists (who get funding) looks at data this way:

Or you can look at it this way:

 

[Randolph Kinney]

NASA and 97% of scientists (who get funding) looks at data this way:

Or you can look at it this way:

Global warming models that predict surface temperature change over time do not agree with reality and they don't agree with satellites that truly measure global temperature since 1975.

The computer models were back fitted to the temperatures and after 1998 the divergence is plainly visible yet no explanation from Climate Scientists that made the computer models why that happened.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Where is the correlation of temperature change to CO2 change?

In “statistician speak” the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not significantly different than zero. Specifically for the period 1998-2014 (to date) the XY plot has an R squared of 0.0068. The AR5 climate sensitivity is 2-4.5 C for a doubling of CO2, with most like value of 3 C, whereas these data suggest a value more like 0.4 C for a doubling of CO2 (which is indeed meaningless given the R squared).

Just by visual inspection, it is intuitively obvious that CO2 levels constantly increasing at an accelerated rate has no connection to the change in temperature, plus or minus.

I wonder if Pete can discern that?

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Hey!

Some people just aren't worth the price of a bullet. Okay?

.

Now there's one classy comment, "liked" by two other clueless no-class individuals. You guys are entertaining. It is interesting to try to follow the ramblings of the aberrant.

 

[Meandering]

Every indication is that you were having trouble following the ramblings of the aberrant.

And your stance on global warming still boils out of all your posts that, there are now a lot of people in the world.

As usual, nothing to add.

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Every indication is that you were having trouble following the ramblings of the aberrant.

And your stance on global warming still boils out of all your posts that, there are now a lot of people in the world.

As usual, nothing to add.

.

Nor cogent understanding of facts related to the topic. Just parroting the political speak which is the basis of his belief.