Emissions of Key Greenhouse Gas Stabilize

brian0918 writes "Multiple news sites are reporting that levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane, have stabilized". From Scientific American: "During the two decades of measurements, methane underwent double-digit growth as a constituent of our atmosphere, rising from 1,520 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1978 to 1,767 ppbv in 1998. But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore — and it is unclear why." From NewScientist: "Although this is good news, it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again, and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change."

Comments

Water Vapor?

[Erioll]

What about Water Vapor (or vapour, depending on where you live)? I've heard that's a major contributor... though the talk you hear about it is... a heated discussion at the very least (flamefests usually).

Re:Water Vapor?

[PineHall]

Yes, water vapor contributes the most to the Greenhouse Effect. I have always wondered how much we affect the climate through irrigated fields and a host of other means of adding water vapor to the atmosphere. The debate happens when you consider clouds and latent heating (water vapor becoming liquid). Then it becomes less clear on what the net effect of water in all its forms has on the climate. This is an active area of study and there is still a lot to learn.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. Water vapour is actually the number one greenhouse gas contributing to more than 80% of global warming. Now don't let facts get in the way of the global warming brainwashing cult.

Re:Water Vapor?

[An Onerous Coward]

Water vapor is tricky. We don't have as much direct control over it as we do CO2, and that's why we tend to focus on the latter.

There are a lot of positive and negative feedbacks associated with it. For one thing, planting trees (a very "poplar" form of carbon sequestration) tends to increase water vapor, as the leaves transpire to keep themselves cool. Also, as oceans heat up (which might be kicked off by an increase in CO2), water vapor increases. This both traps more heat (positive feedback) and increases cloud cover (negative feedback).

I wish I knew where it would stabilize. But I hope it doesn't end up being hot, muggy, and overcast. That would suck.

Re:Water Vapor?

[maxume]

I have trouble believing that irrigation even compares to ocean+sun.

Re:Water Vapor?

[TapeCutter]

It is true that a warmer atmosphere will hold slightly more water vapour. The reason why water vapour is "ignored" as a GHG is because it's cycle time in the atmosphere is in the order of 10 days where as CO2 is ~150yrs.

Realclimate has an interesting discussion about the missing methane.

Re:Water Vapor?

[WilliamSChips]

except it can be controlled in a few days. CO2 takes over a century to cycle, water vapor takes barely over a week.

Re:Water Vapor?

[killjoe]

"I have trouble believing that irrigation even compares to ocean+sun."

Why?

First of all the sun remains constant. Secondly the evaporation from shallow channels would be much higher then deep colder bodies of water like lakes, rivers or the ocean.

Finally virtually every arable square inch of the planet is under cultivation for one thing or another.

Certainly that would add a substantial amount of water vapor into the atmosphere over and above what is already happening in the oceans and lakes.

Re:Water Vapor?

[timmarhy]

"First of all the sun remains constant." completely wrong. the sun is NOT CONSTANT. it's ouput varies wildly with solar flares and obviously with the seasons and other solar cycles. "Secondly the evaporation from shallow channels would be much higher then deep colder bodies of water like lakes, rivers or the ocean." AGAIN you couldn't be more wrong. evaporation has nothing to with with depth, and everything to do with SURFACE AREA, of which the ocean clearly dwarfs our irrigation.

Re:Water Vapor?

[timmarhy]

care to quote your source of c02 taking 100 years to cycle? i can't find anything that's not propaganda.

Re:Water Vapor?

[timmarhy]

water is probably ignored because it's not as cool to say water is warming the planet. much easier to generate fear showing pictures of smog and saying the evil chemical co2 is going to turn the world into a bad kevin cosner movie.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Anonymous Coward]

SURFACE AREA, of which the ocean clearly dwarfs our irrigation.

Uh. Just like you should never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes flying down the highway, you shouldn't underestimate the surface area of millions of little droplets of water. Especially on the sprinkler systems that use mist. And that's just in my backyard, you've got 100 million more households to go, plus millions of companies with lawns, plus millions of acres of farms... and that's just America. I would suspect that in the evening when sprinkling is popular, there is more surface area of water in America alone than all of the oceans.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Not much at all. The vast, vast majority of water vapor comes from moisture exchange from ocean surfaces, for instance.

Volcanos and oceans are the major contributers to greenhouse gases. When you add up the numbers, we contribute less than half a percent. But you won't here that from the alarmist crowd. Just look at the article summary--"Global warming is proven and inevitable! By the way, here is evidence that it's not. But ignore it!"

Just like that "global cooling" nonsense we heard so much about in the 70s.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Ogemaniac]

That was my first thought when I read this (at Scientific American, no less...thanks for the fact checking!). Water is BY FAR the biggest greenhouse gas, followed by CO2 then methane. The global warming that we are all talking about is actually water's amplication of a small temperature increase caused by CO2.

Re:Water Vapor?

[SuperSnooper]

>though the talk you hear about it is... a heated discussion at the very least

So the talk on water vapour is all hot air? I'm not surprised.

Re:Water Vapor?

[MyNymWasTaken]

Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
The atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is difficult to define because it is exchanged with reservoirs having a wide range of turnover times; IPCC 2001, (page 38) gives a range of 5-200 years.

The lifetime of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide (Global Biogeochemical Cycles - American Geophysical Union)
If one assumes a terrestrial biosphere with a fertilization flux, then our best estimate is that the single half-life for excess CO2 lies within the range of 19 to 49 years, with a reasonable average being 31 years. If we assume only regrowth, then the average value for the single half-life for excess CO2 increases to 72 years, and if we remove the terrestrial component completely, then it increases further to 92 years.

Re:Water Vapor?

[catchblue22]

If you want a detailed answer to this question, go to realclimate.org

Here is a somewhat more brief answer, based on what I have read: Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it is quite different than CO2 in that individual water molecules spend relatively little time in the atmosphere before returning to liquid form. CO2 molecules have a far longer lifetime in the atmosphere than water molecules, especially if you consider the relatively short time they spend bound up in plants that will eventually decay and release the CO2 again. The main way to remove the carbon molecule from the system is to bury it, perhaps as sediment at the bottom of the ocean. An important fact to realize is that once we remove carbon from the ground by for example pumping oil, that carbon will remain in the atmospheric system for a very long time.

If I understand the scientific ideas correctly, because the amount of liquid water on the Earth's surface is so large, the actual amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is not limited by the absolute quantity of liquid water. Think of two indoor swimming pools, both with the same surface area, but one being deep and one being shallow. The amount of water vapor in the air will depend on the temperature of the water, the temperature of the air, and surface areas of the pools, among other things. The amount of water vapor in the air is not related to the depth of the pools. Contrast this with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which are related to the absolute amounts existing in the atmospheric system.

So, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is controlled by factors such as temperature, sunlight, and other atmospheric conditions. Water vapor concentration changes in response to other factors, and is thus not considered a driver of climate. Carbon dioxide persists in the atmospheric system, and thus is considered a driver of climate.

I hope I have summarized the theories correctly. However if you want a better explanation, then go to the source. realclimate.org, or better yet find some real scientific papers on the subject.

Re:Water Vapor?

[TapeCutter]

"much easier to generate fear"

As you have clearly demonstrated, it's much easier to post self-serving dribble than it is to post a coherent argument.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Cecil]

Absolute measurements like percentage of the total are not really the issue here. The issue is, how much of a margin do we have before we start changing things enough away from normal that it will begin to affect our productivity, lifestyle, and society in a negative way.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we're trying to cover as much of the surface of the Earth as possible with asphalt. Onlyy making the surface darker can we justify driving all over it.

Re:Water Vapor?

[killjoe]

"First of all the sun remains constant." completely wrong. the sun is NOT CONSTANT. it's ouput varies wildly with solar flares and obviously with the seasons and other solar cycles. "

I meant that when you are considering the sun it's effects on the oceans and the irrigation areas constant.

"AGAIN you couldn't be more wrong. evaporation has nothing to with with depth, and everything to do with SURFACE AREA, of which the ocean clearly dwarfs our irrigation."

It has to with the temprature. Shallow waters heat up faster and evaporate faster. Furthermore a lot of irrigation is done by spraying water from sprinklers which also evaporates at a much higher rate then the ocean.

About the surface area. Yes the ocean has more surface area but that's not the point. If there was no irrigation then the water vapor would be less. Agriculture adds a tremendous amount of water vapor into the air that would not be there otherwise. As I said virtually every square inch of land that can be cultivated is being cultivated. Sure it's less then the oceans which cover 75% of the planet but it's a significant chunk of the remaining 25%.

But hey don't let common sense get in the way. Just ignore the fact that agriculture puts water vapor into the air.

Re:Water Vapor?

[polar red]

that probably makes up for all the hardened surface (roads,buildings) of which water is being led to underground pipes.

Re:Water Vapor?

[OriginalArlen]

I have always wondered how much we affect the climate through irrigated fields and a host of other means of adding water vapor to the atmosphere.

Why not find out? :)

Enjoy :)

Re:Water Vapor?

[morgandelra]

Finally virtually every arable square inch of the planet is under cultivation for one thing or another.

Umm, wrong-o there good buddy. land used for agricultural purposes in US has been falling for years as we can grow more with less land. Many former fields have returned to forest, causing the US to be more heavily forested now than in the last century or so.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Pentagram]

Volcanos and oceans are the major contributers to greenhouse gases. When you add up the numbers, we contribute less than half a percent. But you won't here that from the alarmist crowd.

That's because it's complete bollocks. You have it backwards: volcanoes produce a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases humans cause to be emitted. Feel free to try to find a source for your "facts".

Re:Water Vapor?

[Aewheros]

Water vapor is the major green house gas. But the amount isn't increasing, so it is not a major factor in global warming. It's as simple as that.

Re:Water Vapor?

[RancidBeef]

I would suspect that in the evening when sprinkling is popular, there is more surface area of water in America alone than all of the oceans.

You're nuts.

Re:Water Vapor?

[tomhath]

Solar cycles are very important.

But irrigation not so. First, ocean water is anything but calm. Waves, wind, and and currents ensure lots of evaporation. And respiration from non-irrigated trees and grass dump lots of ground water into the air. Look up how many tons of water a tree loses on a summer day.

Re:Water Vapor?

[tomhath]

Not tons per day, duh. Pound or gallons,

Re:Water Vapor?

[DRJlaw]

But hey don't let common sense get in the way. Just ignore the fact that agriculture puts water vapor into the air.

You cannot argue this point from generic observations, as you have done throughout your messages on this topic. Both forests, mixed zones, and grasslands transpire large quantities of water into the atmosphere.

"Trees planted on previously cleared land commonly use between 30-55% of annual pan evaporation, while healthy trees planted at high density can use up to about 65% of annual pan evaporation. Raper found some evidence that under ideal conditions, maximum long-term water use could be up to 75% of annual pan evaporation." Australian Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation.

The benchmark, pan evaporation, is water loss from a literal gradated shallow pan, which would be even higher than from the shallow channels that you assume predominate in agriculture.

The remainder of your points are demonstrably false. First, the sun does not have a constant energy output, and I am not referring merely to "apparent annual variation" or the 11 year sunspot cycle. Second, cultivation of shallow rooted crops does not necessarily increase evaporative and transpirative losses, as is evident from the report referenced above. Third, virtually every arable inch of land on Earth is not under cultivation, which is blatantly obvious to anyone living in the Eastern United States who lives near a national park or in a new subdivision built over previously cultivated land. "This gross estimate of land with cultivation potential is twice the area that was actually in use for cultivation during 1994-96 according to FAO's statistical data." United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization statistics

But hey, don't let facts that you could Google in less than 5 minutes get in the way of your common sense.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said virtually every square inch of land that can be cultivated is being cultivated.

I call BS on that. More the 90% of the land in my immediate neighborhood that used to be cultivated till corporate nonsense and government activity ran the family farms out of business is still no longer cultivated nor used for raising livestock. Less then 1% of it has been developed into manufacturing or living areas. Most of the people living in this area are stuck here on minimum or near minimum wage jobs. Wouldn't be suprised if the same isn't true in many other areas with farming pasts. And if you think this area would be insignificant amount of land then forget it, cause its miles and miles of Texas. Not to mention there are vastly greater undeveloped areas in Canada. This all might pale compared to ocean surface area but its not insignificant as land goes. The amount of cultivated land has gone down greatly since corporate farming and increased production via vertilizer and playing with the seeds dna either from direct modification or breeding.

OK, turning into a rant, will close and send.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Erioll]

You know, I can't believe I didn't see my own pun. That was actually unintentional.

hehe

Re:Water Vapor?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said virtually every square inch of land that can be cultivated is being cultivated.

Your so wrong. You must be from da' city. Head out to the backwoods of Arizona, or Nevada, or Wyoming, or Montana, or Alaska. You'll be hard pressed to find land that *IS* actually developed or used for anything at all.

I remember standing on a frozen mountain somewhere in the Ruby Valley in Montana looking out in amazement over a good portion of Idaho.. not a sign of life in hundreds of miles.. Snow up to your waist below the ridge line but the wind is so strong on top, the ground is just bare frozen rocks with a little bit of short yellow grass barely able to survive the wind and cold. With the wind factor, the temperature is around 80 degrees below zero. No roads our here.. Only way to get a camp this deep is on horseback, or maybe helicopter, heh.. and not even the horses can get up this far.

Go there "City Joe" and you'll see we are but specks of insignificance to this awesome planet..

Re:Water Vapor?

[killjoe]

"Third, virtually every arable inch of land on Earth is not under cultivation,"

Look I don't mind people arguing what I say but it makes no sense in arguing with somebody who argues something I never said.

Re:Water Vapor?

[letxa2000]

Completely right. If CO2 is the 800-lb gorilla in climate change, water vapor is the 2000-lb gorilla.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Finally virtually every arable square inch of the planet is under cultivation for one thing or another." Post by killjoe.

Re:Water Vapor?

[RickRussellTX]

There is so much wrong with these statements I don't know where to begin.

"The sun's output varies wildly."

No, it does not. Although natural variation in solar radiation is believed to be a driving force in climate (due to feedback effects), the actual variation over the course of the sunspot cycle is on the order of 1 watt/meter squared, or less than 0.1%. Occasionally something like an unusual solar flare will push that up or down by 2 watts /m^2 for a very short period of time.

"evaporation has nothing to with with depth, and everything to do with SURFACE AREA, of which the ocean clearly dwarfs our irrigation"

Soil evaporation is controlled by a lot of factors, not just surface area. The presence of plants is probably the most important factor, as they transport ground water directly into the path of sunlight. The land surface also has a much greater temperature response to solar radiation (soil is lower in heat capacity and tranmissivity than water), so it heats up hotter and cools colder.

Understanding the balance of these water vapor fluxes is an active area of research, and that field of study cannot be dismissed by uttering the words "surface area".

Re:Water Vapor?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Finally virtually every arable square inch of the planet is under cultivation for one thing or another."

Your nut's. Ever flown over the US, Canada, Brazil, Australia? Plus if what you said was true the answer would be to drain the swamps, er wetlands. I never understand why idiots like you think man is the most powerful force in nature. We couldn't change the climate if we tried. This is all about natural cycles and solar activity. PERIOD.

Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean our knowledge of the earth is incomplete?

Re:Wait a minute...

[jpardey]

Actually, no. Our knowledge is complete. Visit the Creationism Museum to learn more.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Morphine007]

<sarcasm>Actually, no. Our knowledge is complete. Visit the Creationism Museum to learn more.</sarcasm>

Fixed that for you...

Re:Wait a minute...

[Durrok]

I see you are new to humor...

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

no, you mean you fixed it for those unable to take any sentence at anything other than face value.

The rest of us were entirely capable to understand his point.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

whoosh

Re:Wait a minute...

[cloricus]

Awesome so we can all just ignore this then? Cause like God would never let some thing as bad as Global Warming happen in the first place!? ...Oh wait...

Sarcasm aside I do worry what would happen if some one put it into the minds of the fundy Christians that Global Warming was the precursor to revelations and the like. With their collective political power in the first world I think we'd have a huge problem on our hands just like we do with their infection of the common understanding of science among the dumb masses. Before any one flames I'm saying this as a worried (liberal) Roman Catholic - I trust the fundies in my religion as much as the next atheist...

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the rest of us were wondering if he was one of the obviously-highly-scientific donators for the ~$25M required for the monument to human stupidity...er... museum

Re:Wait a minute...

[jpardey]

ummmm, ummmm, ummmm..... no.


Could you fix that post for me? Since you did such a good job on my last one?

Re:Wait a minute...

[jpardey]

That is pretty scary. Luckily (sort of) the majority of the power that plays off the "fundies" doesn't want anyone to believe in global warming. Even with Bush sort of admitting it, no one seems to care, although I could be wrong. With all the fervour of 9/11 ==> apocalypse, I think your fears are justified.

Re:Wait a minute...

[jpardey]

You'd be surprised. I thought this post was pretty obvious, given the post I was replying to, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=207336&cid=169 02778

Re:Wait a minute...

[misanthrope101]

What do you mean our knowledge of the earth is incomplete?

Science has never been complete, and in fact complete knowledge is illusory. Anyone claiming to have complete knowledge is either a fool or thinks you are, or both. The anti-science contingent of Protestant fundamentalism, from whence springs evolution and global warming "skepticism" in the USA, pretends that science makes the claim of complete knowledge, and pretends to be shocked when it doesn't actually have it. Partly it's a cynical, specious argument because they're refuting a claim that was never made, and partly it's just the result of stupidity. Because their own Bible stories are the Complete, All-Explaining Truth, they can't comprehend that any alternative explanations wouldn't be comparably ambitious. Science doesn't claim to be the One-Stop Shopping for All Answers--it's just the process to find out about the physical world around us. The only party in town who has ever claimed to have the Whole Truth was religion. If you're skeptical of science because we don't know absolutely everything about the physical world, then religion, which is a collection of bizarre beliefs concerning improbable events, based on a few stories scribbled by persons unknown thousands of years ago, must really seem stupid to you.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Morphine007]

meh, it was a horribly failed attempt at being humourous.

I really do wonder what the major donators to the museum would say about global warming and the science behind trying to effect climate change...

Re:Wait a minute...

[bluefoxlucid]

Religion claims a way and a path, and some peripheral knowledge of right and wrong and what we did to piss off God (or whatever deity or deities) at various points. As for the other stuff, you have to figure that out on your own. Miracles are even purported as "mysteries," i.e. any person can resurrect like Jesus but nobody knows how.

Re:Wait a minute...

[jpardey]

And that post I did was a failed attempt at being humourous. I found your added sarcasm tags funny, for the record.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Morphine007]

and I found your post funny as well... though I was afraid for a second that you were serious... my caffeine levels must've been low or something ;-)

I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[Beached]

Seriously, with the North American BSE scare, how many cows where destroyed or not bread that would have been? Cows are a major producer of methane and there are lots of them.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[From A Far Away Land]

I'm not so sure how "major" they could be. Noteworthy I'd be sure of, but do you have estimation figures that put them near the top of the 'new methane in the atmosphere' list?

Using their patties for biofuel is something I think North Americans aren't looking at closely enough. There's definately fosssil-type fuel to be had from their back end production.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[DigitalRaptor]

So which is it: They're not a major source of methane in the atmosphere OR their crap puts off a ton of methane and we should use it as fuel? I don't think you can have that both ways.

I believe it is the latter. They are a significant contributor to the methane problem AND we should be harnessing every bit of methane we can as fuel.

For the record, cows produce a lot of methane from both ends. Their 4 stomachs and digestion produce a fair amount from that end, and we've all smelt the other ends production. Whew, it's hard to dispute.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[JonathanR]

The US might have got rid of cows, but LNG production/use has nowhere near fully ramped up. I'd suspect that there will be significant methane emissions from LNG production/liquifaction/regassification.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[From A Far Away Land]

It can be both ways, they can be not significant in the global scheme of things, yet their poop can be good to use, since we tend to gather a lot of cattle into one place to make resource collection convenient for us. I really would like to know their estimated methane production in a year though, compared to say other natural sources or industry.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[foobsr]

Wetlands 76%
Termites 11%
Oceans 8%
Hydrates 5%


http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html#natural

So my first guess would be a global reduction of wetlands. Nope, I shall not look for evidence now, it is 3a.m. .

CC.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[Qzukk]

They're not a major source of methane in the atmosphere OR their crap puts off a ton of methane and we should use it as fuel?

Or their crap has no methane and yet can still be used for fuel (your dichotomy is false).

Anyway, http://www.ciesin.org/TG/AG/liverear.html claims that livestock causes 15 of all organic-sourced methane "emissions". Mostly due to fermentation in their stomachs, mostly from low quality feed.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not shure wear you get you're info from, but I enjoy a nice cow and bred sandwich!

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[matw8]

You need to go back and read that page again.
You've only listed the "natural" sources of Methane.
If you look at "man made" sources then "enteric fermentation" (or livestock related) accounts for a substantial chunk (23%). Livestock manure management accounts for another big chunk (7%)

According to that EPA page, man made emissions account for 544Tg/year and the natural sources you list account for 190Tg/year. Livestock accounts for 154.1Tg/year.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[foobsr]

You've only listed the "natural" sources of Methane.

I quoted so: "sources.html#natural". I based my guess on the figure that man is contributing 60% (as they say).

I assume that the 544TgCO2 Equivalents/year you cite are from the table which gives figures for the U.S. alone, while the 190Tg/year are on a global basis. The 154.1TgCO2 Equivalents/year is also U.S only. So I see a problem.

CC.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[foobsr]

http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?art icleID=442

"Scientists have discovered why atmospheric levels of methane have stabilised in recent years, but their findings are bad news for industry and agriculture where rising emissions of the greenhouse gas have been revealed.
The scientists, including researchers from France's Climate and Environment Science Laboratory and Australia's national science agency CSIRO, found that a reduction in natural emissions of methane from wetlands has been masking rising emissions from human-related activity."

Sic! Intuition still works, and, believe me, I did not read this before.

CC.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[TykeClone]

And concentrated manure can be anaerobically treated to produce methane (epa) Even more surprising is that the bulk of methane produced from manure comes from pork production - and that is an industry that has consolidated holdings to make it very easy to tack methane based energy production to the "tail end" of the feed cycle.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[geobeck]

...we should be harnessing every bit of methane we can as fuel.

This just got me wondering... what do you get when you oxidize (burn) methane? Oh, great, more CO2!

If only we could generate energy efficiently by partially oxidizing sugar. At least we'd have a useful byproduct.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[bdeclerc]

Yeah, you get more CO2, but CH4 is a 20 times more effective Greenhouse gas than CO2, so while it would be best to completely sequester the gas produced in this way, converting CH4 to CO2 is already a significant improvement over just dumping the CH4 in the atmosphere.

Re:I wonder if this has to do with BSE

[msobkow]

Cattle manure does produce significant methane. So do pig and sheep manure. Pretty much any ruminant does.

There are many examples over the past decade or two of experimental and prototype methane collection facilities using manure as a source. If I recall correctly, the issue is that keeping the slurry at the right temperature during the methane extraction limits the regions where it can be done. Doing it here in a Saskatchewan winter would burn more fuel to warm the slurry tanks than you'd get back, but farther south it ends up net-positive.

Arctic

[edwardpickman]

The real 800lb gorilla for methane is the Arctic. If the predictions are right then this is the calm before the storm. If the Arctic melts, which it is, it'll release vast amounts of methane. It's likely to dwarf all other greenhouse sources. Everyone seems to be ignoring the Arctic but all the CO2 sources combined can't compare so a melting Arctic should be our primary concern. If it's the canary then the canary isn't just dead but it has been reduced to a skeleton.

Re:Arctic

[ductonius]

Would it kill the doom and gloom too much to point out that CH4 + 2 O2 --> 2 H2O + CO2 ?

Re:Arctic

[TFer_Atvar]

Actually, approximately half of the floating arctic icecap melts every year, due to temperature fluctuations and ice currents. Approximately every seven years, the entire floating arctic icecap is renewed. Note that this doesn't include glacial ice in Greenland, Alaska, Scandinavia, etc.

Re:Arctic

[Morphine007]

so you're saying we should pump methane into the atmosphere and light it on fire?

Re:Arctic

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it kill the doom and gloom too much to point out that CH4 + 2 O2 --> 2 H2O + CO2 ?

Which is why, of course, there is no atmospheric methane at all ... oh wait a sec.

Re:Arctic

[saforrest]

If the predictions are right then this is the calm before the storm. If the Arctic melts, which it is, it'll release vast amounts of methane.

Uh, perhaps this is a naive question, but the frozen Arctic is, well, ice. Where is the carbon going to come from to make CH4? Now, there are probably some levels of CO2 trapped in ice bubbles, but speaking naively I don't see how this is a hugely significant contribution to global atmospheric carbon levels?

Not that a thawed Arctic wouldn't suck for other reasons, of course.

Re:Arctic

[malsdavis]

good point, shame about the clichés.

Re:Arctic

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, perhaps this is a naive question, but the frozen Arctic is, well, ice. Where is the carbon going to come from to make CH4? Now, there are probably some levels of CO2 trapped in ice bubbles, but speaking naively I don't see how this is a hugely significant contribution to global atmospheric carbon levels?

He was probably referring to the permafrost tundra regions just south of the arctic regions and they are actually thawing already, emitting huge amounts of methane.

Re:Arctic

[DigitalRaptor]

Not real familiar with satellite imagery, are you?

The ice that is there may come and go (freeze and thaw) with the seasons, but it is indisputable that there is a hell of a lot more going than there is coming back.

Satellite imagery from the 70's to now is shocking and disappointing, even bordering on the scary (beyond scary, I think).

Re:Arctic

[heptapod]

Hi there. If the arctic melts, it's not going to be a big deal because it will not cause sea levels to rise.
If the antarctic melts then coastal cities are shit out of luck.

Re:Arctic

[DigitalRaptor]

I don't know enough about which ice is over the ocean and which is over land, but much of it is over land.

Much of that land is comprised of old peat bogs and other partially decomposed plant life.

As it is exposed and thaws it releases huge amounts of methane. This has already been observed and written about at length.

IIRC it's one of the greatest potential contributors to the "tipping point".

Re:Arctic

[DigitalRaptor]

Not all of us are Jimmy Neutron. Try again in english, please.

Re:Arctic

[ukemike]

The grandparent poster was not talking about the floating ice on the Arctic Ocean. He was talking about the permafrost in places like Alaska, Canada, and Siberia.

It is suprising that methane has stabilized. There was a paper published this summer stating that melting permafrost was releasing methane at a much higher rate than expected. This would mean that some other source of methane would have to be slowing. If this is true it is good news indeed. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Oh and the previous poster who made the condescending comment about the "doom and gloom" crowd... I am someone whom you would probably lump into that crowd. Notice how I said that this is good news? I don't think many people WANT catastrophic global climate change but people are concerned about the very real possibility.

I believe that we can take action now that can minimize the effects of climate change. A fairly recent ban on CFCs has resulted in an average reduction in the size of the antarctic ozone hole (though it was very big this summer.) The very cool thing about seizing the initiative on this front is that if done right we can stimulate new manufacturing (solar) in the US, stimulate construction, reduce our dependence on dwindling oil supplies, AND "save the world." Or we can sit on our hands and let the opportunity pass.

Re:Arctic

[ductonius]

Methane oxidizes into water and carbon-dioxide.

Re:Arctic

[Ruff_ilb]

His point is that we can't just burn the methane, because that would produce water vapor and carbon dioxide, which hardly makes the problem better...

Re:Arctic

[Capsaicin]

His point is that we can't just burn the methane, because that would produce water vapor and carbon dioxide, which hardly makes the problem better...

I'm sorry? Methane has a forcing potential of up to 24 times as much of CO2.

Re:Arctic

[saforrest]

Thanks very much, that answers my question nicely.

Re:Arctic

[alexhard]

Let me guess....you just pulled that out of your ass didn't you?

Let me reference nasa.gov:

"While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period."

Get your stories straight or don't post..misinformation doesn't benefit anyone

Re:Arctic

[alexhard]

damn, forgot to link..
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820 southseaice.html

Re:Arctic

[Anonymous Coward]

on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica

Mod parent -1, can't find the difference between Artic and Antartic Circles with both hands and a map.

Re:Arctic

[TapeCutter]

"I'm sorry? Methane has a forcing potential of up to 24 times as much of CO2."

It's a moot point unless we are talking huge releases over a short time (eg: Hydrates from the ocean floor), compared to CO2, Methane degrades rapidly in the atmosphere.

Re:Arctic

[TapeCutter]

"Get your stories straight or don't post..misinformation doesn't benefit anyone"

Not sure what your point is here since the GP didn't mention Anatartica, Arctic ice comes from the Arctic (north), Antartic ice comes from Antartica (south). Since the mid 1950's the Arctic ice cap has lost ~60% of it's volume (although one "skeptic" belives the missing ice is hiding behind Canada somewhere).

There has been very little change in the volume of the Antartic ice cap, however both the Antartic penninsula and Greenland have experinced a +3C rise in average tempratures compared to the +1C global average (accurately predicted by climate models I might add).

Re:Arctic

[DavidRawling]

Oh for mod points ...

Mod parent -1, "Doesn't comprehend that the Arctic and Antarctic circles are on the same damn planet".

If the Arctic shrinks and the Antarctic grows at a similar rate, the total amount of sea ice at the poles may well be [close to] constant. That's not to say that the planet's albedo doesn't change, or that ocean currents won't change, or that we're somehow safe.

BTW - the sibling article suggests that the rate of decline in the Arctic is higher than the rate of increase in the Antarctic. Unfortunately the sibling's link appears to be incorrect (there is an errant space between the date and page name).

Re:Arctic

[ceoyoyo]

Or perhaps some source of negative feedback has kicked in. It really isn't THAT surprising that there is some negative feedback that acts to hold things fairly steady through all the time and changes the Earth has been through.

Re:Arctic

[TapeCutter]

"If the Arctic shrinks and the Antarctic grows at a similar rate"

The point is that they don't, also the total volume of ice that matters a lot more than the area it covers. The volume of Antaric ice has changed very little if at all, the increased sea ice in the Antartic may be due to Antartic glaciers moving into the sea at a slightly faster rate, however increased snowfall more or less balances the loss (unlike greenland and the Antartic pennisula where increased snowfall can not keep up with the loss).

Re:Arctic

[geobeck]

...although one "skeptic" believes the missing ice is hiding behind Canada somewhere.

(Turns around) Nope, don't see it.

Behind us? What does this skeptic think we're doing? Hiding it in the freezer so we can lob snowballs across the 49th parallel next summer?

...or maybe our Northwest Passage defense force has hidden it in his pickup truck?

No, no, I know what it is. With all of our urban expansion, we've used up so much snow to build our igloos, mother nature just can't keep up!

Re:Arctic

[rujholla]

I believe that we can take action now that can minimize the effects of climate change. A fairly recent ban on CFCs has resulted in an average reduction in the size of the antarctic ozone hole

Ya except that same ban on CFC's supposedly has been a large contributor to mans contribution to global warming. ---- However that said I'm all for reducing our CO2 output if we do it by replacing foreign oil with some combination of nuclear, wind, solar etc.

Re:Arctic

[Eivind]

He is probably refereing to Methane Clathrate, ice-like methane that exists in enormous amounts on the seabed around the world. If a substantial part of this where to be released into the atmosphere it would indeed be a disaster. However we don't have any specific reason to believe global warming would acomplish that, this ice is on the *bottom* of the ocean, where temperatures are low and stable (1-3 degree centigrade), it's unlikely a few degrees of warming would change this much.

But he's confused. Methane Clathrate ain't concentrated in the Arctic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

Re:Arctic

[zCyl]

Satellite imagery from the 70's to now is shocking and disappointing, even bordering on the scary (beyond scary, I think).

Uh, link please?

Re:Arctic

[w3woody]

Couldn't we just ignite the methane gas over the arctic during summer, pushing the Earth out a hair from it's current orbit? I think I saw the idea on Futurama... We can even celebrate the extra week by declaring it as a robot party week!

Re:Arctic

[Oersoep]

Dude, even if the total amount of ice was growing, it STILL would release massive amounts of methane that's been stacked there for millions of years.

Re:Arctic

[OriginalArlen]

Hi there!

The real 800lb gorilla for methane is the Arctic. If the predictions are right then this is the calm before the storm. If the Arctic melts, which it is, it'll release vast amounts of methane.

You are mistaken. There is no methane in Arctic ice. You may be thinking of the enormous deposits of methane in the form of hydrates, an icy substance that is stable under enormous pressures in cold deep water. There's a serious theory that rising temps at some point could trigger them to start melting, which really would cause utterly catastrophic short-term heating - think 15 degrees in a couple of decades. This has happened naturally in the past. some reading on hydrates, Google & wikipedia will also help.

Re:Arctic

[jez9999]

And even then you didn't link properly...

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southsea ice.html

Re:Arctic

[StarfishOne]

Perhaps a few degrees of warming would not change much, but I'm afraid of what is going to happen when the threshold is on which it starts to be released. Everything that is released would add to global warming, which would speed up the release of other methane, which would add to global warming etc. Would this not create a whole cascade of effects?

And what about the fact that it is stored on the oceanic seabeds.. that means it is stored under pressure.. which will likely cause each amount of methane to expand when it reaches the water surface, right?

Disclaimer: climate change and gas/chemistry stuff is one of those scientific fields of which the reading material is still on my todo list. Please forgive any stupid question. :)

Re:Arctic

[Eivind]

Perhaps, but it's hard to say. A large portion of the known Methan Clathrate deposits are actually in tropicla or subtropical waters, which sound very odd until you consider that water is at its densest at 4 degrees centigrade above freezing, i.e. go deep enough and that's about the temperature no matter if it's in the tropics or in the Arctic.

Re:Arctic

[fyngyrz]

What does this skeptic think we're doing? Hiding it in the freezer so we can lob snowballs across the 49th parallel next summer?

....mmmmph... bunch of bacon-eating bastards... we know what you're doing with it... you're sequestering the ice for your goddamned BEER, that's what you're doing... Oh yes, we know you, you and your CARBONATED beer... CANADIANS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING! You and your goddamned elk, farting out their methane... and then there's Alaniss Morisette... hot air, global warming... anyone can see the truth in it...

What? Oh. OK. I, um, I have to go now. Time for my meds.

Re:Arctic

[SubtleNuance]

This article at RealClimate.com discuss this very topic.

Climate change is going to dump a whack of methane into the atmosphere.

Re:Arctic

[Anonymous Coward]

".... (accurately predicted by climate models I might add)."

Not sure what your point is either! The climate models have such wide ranges that they predict everything. They still provide no proof of anything - they are just assertions. You could do the same thing as the Pastafarians - they claim the the decline in "speaking like a pirate" is the cause of global warming, and have an impressive corelation graph to back it up.

Re:Arctic

[TapeCutter]

"The climate models have such wide ranges that they predict everything"

Nothing can predict the mind numbing ingnorance of an AC who would give the Pastafarian paradoy the same weight as a physics text book when discussing science.

*===Hey mom, I fed the troll, Jane has to do the dishes.

Less gas?

[miroth]

Does less methane in Earth's atmosphere mean that people are farting less?

Re:Less gas?

[sillybilly]

Actually cows burp a lot of methane when they redigest cellulose the second time. Also when they fart. Also horses fart a lot, but I guess by biomass humans much outweight horses, if not all animal biomass. Methane is a byproduct of anaerobic bacterial digestion, and it is generated a lot in swampy lakes and rivers just as much as in your intestines - the bubbles you see rise to the surface while fisihing are practically methane. If there are a lot less swamps with rotting vegetation around because of human development clearing them away, that means a lot less methane is vented into the atmosphere. I'm still curious what the degradation/extraction mechanisms of methane are - does it accumulate forever in the atmosphere? That doesn't sound true. There's gotta be more than just lighning or cosmic rays or irradiation consuming it - does it all end up dissolved in a sea? There must be some methane-fixing bacteria just like there are nitrogen fixing ones. What is the consumer part of the methane-cycle?

Re:Less gas?

[Salsaman]

Just an educated guess, but: methane is one carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms. It will eventually get oxidised into 1 carbon dioxide molecule and 2 water molecules, due to increased sunlight in the upper atmosphere.

Re:Less gas?

[karlto]

Does less methane in Earth's atmosphere mean that people are farting less?

No, just stricter controls on emissions.

Re:Less gas?

[sillybilly]

Ahh.. that's right.. it's lighter than air, so it rises easily, and it reacts with free radicals in the ozone layer, just like it easily gets chlorinated if the free radical chain reaction is initiated. I guess any free radical may decompose it, including nitrous oxide species and ozone generated in pine forests, not just radiation/UV/lightning generated ones.

Not good news

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not good news because if people think that the problem is not serious enough to warrant attention, society will not change its bad habits. Burning fossil fuels, driving polluting cars, and spewing chemicals into the air and our water supplies must not continue. Gas prices work similarly. A drop in prices is not necessarily good news because it will discourage people from acting to move away from our Middle Eastern energy dependence.

Re:Not good news

[Kangburra]

This is not good news because if people think that the problem is not serious enough to warrant attention, society will not change its bad habits. Burning fossil fuels, driving polluting cars, and spewing chemicals into the air and our water supplies must not continue. Gas prices work similarly. A drop in prices is not necessarily good news because it will discourage people from acting to move away from our Middle Eastern energy dependence.

Why has this been hidden by the mods?

This is a valid point, there are some who still dispute global warming exists and to them this is complete proof they are right. I can't believe anyone is willing to gamble on this.

Re:Not good news

[Embedded2004]

s/"dispute global warming"/"dispute climate change"/g

Anyone who disputes climate change is a moron. The debate isn't about whether climate change occurs (of course it does). It's about who caused it.

I don't care which side of the debate you're on -- at least understand what is being debated.

Re:Not good news

[timmarhy]

it's not wrong to dispute the insane rantings about sea levels rizing meters in 20 years. sure there has been a warming trend, but it's nothing like the trash science alarmists like to spout.

Re:Not good news

[Orne]

This is not good news because if people think that the problem is not serious enough to warrant attention, society will not change its bad habits.

Unless, of course, the problem wasn't serious enough to warrent attention in the first place, as many environmental skeptics have been saying all along.

Sources of methane

[Kazymyr]

The single largest source of methane as a greenhouse gas is (flatulence from)cattle raised in the third world for food. The next sources in order are cattle raised in the western world, and human flatulence IIRC.

Does the stabilization of methane levels mean they're now feeding beano to cattle?

Re:Sources of methane

[RubberBaron]

I do hope you were joking.

Just in case bozos out there actually believe it: The IPCC estimates that 60% of methane produced comes from our agriculture, industry, and waste. Humans are the biggest single source of methane. In North America and Europe, the largest single source of methane comes from landfills. The largest source of natural methane comes from wetlands.

Re:Sources of methane

[PCM2]

Does the stabilization of methane levels mean they're now feeding beano to cattle?

This would be funnier if it weren't partially true. Australian farmers have been experimenting with a "vaccine" that stimulates the immune systems of cows to kill some of the natural microbes in their digestive tracts -- the ones responsible for releasing much of the methane. Given that they're messing with cows' biology in this way, I sure hope it doesn't turn out that cow-methane isn't the problem we think it is.

Re:Sources of methane

[udderly]

In North America and Europe, the largest single source of methane comes from landfills.

I have a relative who is an engineer for a company that produces bricks. A current strategy that this company uses is to build brick factories, which consume enormous amounts of power in their kilns, next to large landfills. This burns methane, reducing the amount in the atmosphere, and reduces the amount of fossil fuels burned at power generating facilities. http://www.pwmag.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=7 60&articleID=390150

We need to be working on more solutions like this instead of arguing about the minutiae about global warming.

Re:Sources of methane

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the stabilization of methane levels mean they're now feeding beano to cattle?No, it means the veggies have realized the errors of their ways;

Stop global warming, eat a cow!

Beano?

[orangepeel]

Beano?

Obligatory

[inviolet]

I'll bet global methane emissions can be shown to track the gross sales of Taco Bell.

Hmmmm... their stock has climbed steadily since August. Perhaps the methane readings are due to their recent switch to Canola oil.

Re:Obligatory

[DeathElk]

Informative? Nice work mods. I'll consider myself duly informed.

I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why.

One line - eat less beans.

Just mail the Nobel Prize to my address, thanks.

That's not as much help as you might think.

[sbaker]

The thing is that it takes lots of years for the effect of gas ratio changes at sea level to propagate up into the upper atmosphere.

From the vague article, these appear to be sea-level measurements - so the density of methane in the upper atmosphere (where it actually matters) will continue to grow for maybe 10 years before it starts to level off.

We are seeing the effects of methane growth rates in the 1980's and 1990's...it'll get worse before it gets better.

Re:That's not as much help as you might think.

[TapeCutter]

That's a nice theory but methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere, the best scientists working in climatology are still scratching their heads on this one.

Re:That's not as much help as you might think.

[CheshireCatCO]

Why are you worried about the upper atmosphere? The greenhouse effect occurs in the troposphere, basically.

Re:That's not as much help as you might think.

[OriginalArlen]

We are seeing the effects of methane growth rates in the 1980's and 1990's...it'll get worse before it gets better.

Actually, methane has a very short life in the atmosphere; it breaks down via some very straightforward chemistry (details left as an exercise for the reader :) This is in stark contrast to CO2, which once released is around until natural processes soak it up. Natural processes such as the formation of rocks and oil... slow processes.

PsychoFlatulance

[Anonymous Coward]

"But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why.""

Wishful thinking is a powerful thing.

Let me get this straight

[Kohath]

Ok, let me get this straight.

The methane gas was coming from an 800-pound gorilla?

Re:Let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the republican congress and senate.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Andy Gardner]

Ok, let me get this straight.

The methane gas was coming from an 800-pound gorilla?

Gentlemen, I have our solution.

We wait till wintertime rolls around... the 800lb gorillas simply freeze to death!

Re:Let me get this straight

[mapinguari]

I don't think that will work.
As I understand it, this 800-pound gorilla lives in the Arctic!

CO2 emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have to worry about reducing CO2 emissions and global warming.

When the CO2 levels rise to the point where it's poisonous, then Human involvement will drop significantly.

Problem solved!

Burping, not farting

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Burping, but ruminant animals (cows, sheep etc), produces far more methane than these animals farting. Apparently the greenhouse gas output of 1 sheep is equivalent to driving 1200km.

Lots of methane comes from anaerobic activity (rotting vegetation/sawdust, landfills, waste water processing etc). Even atural swamps and forest floor decomposition produce a lot of methane and CO2.

Methane is far worse than CO2, thus it is preferable to burn off methane than let is escape into the atmosphere. Better still to burn it and extract power.

But the major interesting factor is that the methane levels have stabilised without understanding why. Likely it is being changed into CO2 by some process which is not well understood. Likely too, all the atmospheric carbon models are way to simplistic to really predict what is going to happen 10, 50 or a hundred years out.

American beer

[OrangeTide]

People are drinking less cheap American beer and turning to wine and high quality ales. There is much less farting than there was 25 years ago.

Re:American beer

[pclminion]

The chief cause of beer flatulence is yeast cells. The second biggest cause is complex sugar. It is something that your bowel can adjust to over time, so people who regularly drink beer with yeast in it aren't so affected by it. Ironically, the American swill beer you mention is filtered and pasteurized, so it contains no yeast at all. And anybody who's tasted a Coors Light can also tell you that the complex sugar content is practically nonexistent. So, American megaswill should be among the LEAST likely beers to cause gas.

I'd put far more blame on the FOOD that is typically consumed while drinking crap beer.

The worst case of beer farts I've ever witnessed (and I wish I hadn't) was caused by one of my homebrewed beers. Yeast? You betcha we got yeast. My afflicted friend said he absolutely loved the beer. But oh God, the side effects.

Re:American beer

[Anonymous Coward]

you fail it.

Re:American beer

[DkY]

I was taking a little holiday to visit a friend in California and ended up staying with some people in Encinitas. I was lucky enough to get to try a crap load of the microbrew beers while I was there but after about a week of drinking quite a lot of this stuff (And I'm Irish!) I went to a local bar for a few games of pool (or billiards or whatever you guys call it) and although there were no effects before that particular night, the running joke after was they had to repaint the walls after I was through!

SoCal microbrew beer is great but the side effects can be toxic :)

Welcome to Slash-New-Scientist-Dot

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot, the front site for New Scientist. Everybody click on the new Scientist link and click through on their ads now so Slashdot can get their kickback. Do your pseudo science duty and help support the Slashdot - New Scientist partnership.

New Scientist is an OSTG site.

Scares the bejesus out of me

[Toby The Economist]

So here we are, currently doing basically bugger all about global warming, but with plenty of computer simulations and estimates about how much warming will happen in how many years, and plenty of politics going on about who should pay for it, and what about second world countries, and AFAICS it's basically a game of how long can be put off doing something about this, because it's going to cost plenty of money and we don't seem to need to be doing it just right now...

Now, out of the blue, something *utterly* unexpected, inexplicable and major happens - the rate of methane emission levels out; and no one has a *CLUE* why.

Well, I can hear this ticking noise...

I sure hope we figure out interplanetry colonization soon.

You know - just in case.

Re:Scares the bejesus out of me

[timmarhy]

my god you people are so ignorant. global warming fanatics WHINE so loudly about the little we do, do you have any ideaa the environmental reulations put in place over the last 20 years? you can't scratch your arsehole without the EPA having a say. And you seem so sure yet all you can do is carrying on like stick waving sharmans of doom when something happens you can't explain. the obvious answer, is our increased technology has leveled out the emissions.

Re:Scares the bejesus out of me

[WilliamSChips]

second-world countries no longer exist, and haven't since christmas 1991.

Re:Scares the bejesus out of me

[Anonymous Coward]

the obvious answer, is our increased technology has leveled out the emissions.

That would be an obvious answer if we were the cause of the majority of the methane. While capturing methane and using it for fuel has done a lot relative to the amount that we're responsible for, all of the rotting of all of the dead things all over the world dwarfs that, just ever so slightly, by a few decimal places or so.

Meanwhile, I think you'll find that the EPA regulations over the past 20 years focused more on things that tended to poison people and "smog" than this much more recent flareup over greenhouse gasses.

Re:Scares the bejesus out of me

[asuffield]

Now, out of the blue, something *utterly* unexpected, inexplicable and major happens - the rate of methane emission levels out; and no one has a *CLUE* why.

And yet all the pro-global-warming mob will still be screaming about how we know everything about the climate already, and only kooks think it's still uncertain.

Re:Scares the bejesus out of me

[khallow]

Now, out of the blue, something *utterly* unexpected, inexplicable and major happens - the rate of methane emission levels out; and no one has a *CLUE* why.

In other words, that would be an indication (we'll see if it continues) of no nearby methane "tipping point". It's good news for the safety and well-being of human civilization and Earth's ecosystems. It's not inexplicable, just means someone's climate models are off.

AFAICS it's basically a game of how long can be put off doing something about this, because it's going to cost plenty of money and we don't seem to need to be doing it just right now...

Right. And even though we don't need to do something right now, we are by putting substantial sums into development of the next generation of nuclear, solar, and wind power and developing better electric transportation. And we're doing that without unjustified destruction of human resources unlike proposed carbon emission reductions. So what's the problem?

Re:Scares the bejesus out of me

[Toby The Economist]

> In other words, that would be an indication (we'll see if it continues) of no nearby methane "tipping point".

I'm confused - how do you draw this conclusion from what happened?

No one has any idea of the mechanism which has kicked in which is now absorbing methane emissions.

For all we know, there could be a huge "inbreath" of methane before the methane tipping point - this could be the final warning! of course, I've just pulled that out of a hat, but you get my point - if the mechanism is not understand, how can you *conclude* "therefore methane tipping point can't be near".

> Right. And even though we don't need to do something right now,

TBH, I think we're way too late *already*. I think we're screwed right now, we just don't know it yet.

Re:Scares the bejesus out of me

[khallow]

I'm confused - how do you draw this conclusion from what happened?

Huh, because if there is modest methane concentration now and much larger amounts later, then they would require some period of time with increases in methane concentration, probably large jumps in methane concentration.

For all we know, there could be a huge "inbreath" of methane before the methane tipping point - this could be the final warning! of course, I've just pulled that out of a hat, but you get my point - if the mechanism is not understand, how can you *conclude* "therefore methane tipping point can't be near".

Fine. But at some point you need to consider physical evidence rather than what might happen. And the phyisical evidence indicates that while methane levels have been increasing, the increases haven't been signficant. Now we're seeing stalling in methane levels. It's very inconsistent with a huge jump in methane production, if you ask me.

TBH, I think we're way too late *already*. I think we're screwed right now, we just don't know it yet.

Seeing as you have no reason for feeling this way, I don't see the point of your comment. Let's go back to your original claim. Namely, that it's more prudent to act dramatically and expensively without understanding the system rather than delaying action until we understand the system, have the technology to adequate maintain our standard of living and solve any problems, and until there actually are problems that need to be solved.

Sweet.

[pizzach]

Sweet! Party at my place to celebrate! (I'll bring the bean dip)

the answer

[kencurry]

"methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why."

I fart less than I used to...

CO2

[bwy]

and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change.

Actually, carbon dioxide is a small player. Water is responsible for at least 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. It is amazing to me how everyone is so eager to jump on a single bandwagon when it comes to global warming. Anyone who offers contradictory information is immediately dubbed as an "oil company lover" or a "right-wing anti-environmentalist." The first unfortunate truth is that science on both sides is being funded by people with particular interests. Oil companies and industrialists would love for global warming NOT to exist just as much as many anti-corporate liberals and environmental extremists would love for it TO exist.

The second unfortunate truth is that we know very little about the Earth's climate system. It is a complex subject where everything is interdependent on everything else. We need to invest more money into figuring out how it all works and we need to figure out how to get the money to those scientists in such a way that they aren't pressured to produce results that imply specific conclusions.

Do you really expect that the left are sincere in their motives and that they really want to "make the earth a better place?" Hint- the answer is the same as whether you think the right's sincere motive is to "keep the country safe." Most politicians are the same breed. Some will try to convince you that invading Iraq is necessary to protect America and some will try to convince you that new laws are required to prevent global warming and save the environment. Neither side consistently demonstrates the ability to think rationally or objectively which is in fact the only moral way to govern.

Re:CO2

[jcr]

industrialists would love for global warming NOT to exist
That depends on which industrialists you're talking about. Many businessmen see enormous opportunities in developing and selling techologies to address the matter.

-jcr

Re:CO2

[toolazytothink]

But in fact, human behaviour does not seem to be changing water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere, while as many many scientists have observed, rising concentrations of CO2 (which seem to be linked to rising levels of development, and energy production and use) are proportional to temperature increases. Water is a much more complicated greenhouse gas because it goes into the atmosphere easily, but it also comes out easily. CO2, on the other hand does not leave the atmosphere easily, and it is having a measurable effect on our climate.

Re:CO2

[An Onerous Coward]

The reason we don't talk much about water vapor is because humanity really doesn't have much control over the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. However, we are definitely the primary source for the steady increase in CO2 over the last few decades.

Another thing to remember is that we're talking about climate *change*. The fact that water vapor provides most of the Earth's warm comfy blanket is less important than the fact that we're adding another layer, because the addition is what is driving the change (and possibly starting up various feedback loops). If your wife asks you to stop hogging the covers, do you point out how she would be freezing to death without the insulation provided by the house? No, you accept that the smaller thermal value of the blanket is a real issue.

Re:CO2

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean finally someone (bwy) says something that makes sense and you give him a 2? Yikes!

Re:CO2

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 informative? should be -1, load of crap. Water vapour is indeed responsible for most of the greenhouse effect, but not the forcing, except in the indirect sense. Ever hear of thermodynamics, system equilibriums, maybe even the universal gas law (if you maybe went to college or a decent high school)? How about feedback loops?

To spell it out for you, more forcing via CO2 and CH4 results in higher temps, which results in more H20 evaporation, which results in higher temps, which results in more evaporation, ad infinitum until a new equilibrium temperature results which is higher that you would get from the additional CO2+CH4 contribution alone. Elementary physics, and never mind feedback amplifiers such as methane clathrate sublimation and rotting peat bogs. You sir are a cretin or maybe just a dumbass troll.

PS possible feedback impedence mechanisms are mostly hypothetical and presently fall under the loony rationalizations category, don't even try to go there as policy justification until you have 50 years of research proving them, as there is 50 years of research behind the scientific consensus that anthropogenic forcing of climate change is real and potentially disastrous.It has nothing to do with "left" or "right". You are correct that we need to do more climate research, but what we also really need to do is work on carbon-neutral energy, and fast.

Re:CO2

[OriginalArlen]

Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. Go know just enough to be dangerous by spewing misinformation. Please, go and read some real science before you regurgitate am radio.

Re:CO2

[iogan]

Oil companies and industrialists would love for global warming NOT to exist just as much as many anti-corporate liberals and environmental extremists would love for it TO exist.

I'm very anti-corporate, a socialist, and I really care about the environment. However, I would LOVE for Global Warming not to exist. It's just that what I want doesn't matter. The currently accepted theory is that is does exist, regardless of what I or you want. That's the problem.

Re:CO2

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont care much for water vapor in the atmosphere.
For one, my lungs don't mind that much when they breathe in a little water vapor. I even like the air to be a bit moist.
Burning fossil fuels however produces not only co2, but other side effects. like smog and other polutants in the air, wich can damage your lungs significantly.

Even if global warming is a myth, i really desire progress on alternate fuels so that my children get the chance to breath air that is healthy to breathe.

I myself live in a country area with lots of nature and trees, so the air is not so bad here.
But if i go to the nearest big city i notice directly how bad the quality of the air is there. If i spend a few days in such a place it is not unlikely that i start coughing and end up with a headache. I went to london once, and i was disgusted by the smog hanging above the city, you can hardly even see the night sky there.

It may not be a fact that greenhouse gasses are a part of global warming. But it is a fact that other polutants are damaging our lungs world wide.

Re:CO2

[matrem]

Actually, carbon dioxide is a small player. Water is responsible for at least 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect.

This number shows up quite often, but I've never found a credible source for it. Can you point me to the reference where you got this number? Thanks.

Re:CO2

[Anonymous Coward]

"and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change.

Actually, carbon dioxide is a small player. Water is responsible for at least 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. "

Firstly the greenhouse effect and climate change are NOT the same thing. Water is reponsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect and there is nothing wrong with that. It issue is the change in current conditions to something else. This is where increases in CO2 may come into play.

Re:CO2

[hey!]

Actually, carbon dioxide is a small player.

Depends if you are talking net or marginal contribution.

Or maybe drought

[capedgirardeau]

Drought causes many western ranchers to significantly reduce herd size as the feeding/grazing/watering becomes cost prohibitive. If you consider cows to be a significant source of methane of course.

My fault

[Anonymous Coward]

But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why

Yeah, I quit with the bean burritos. Sorry about that whole warming thing, everybody. I'm done with them for good, now.

20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Usquebaugh]

Arghhh,

        just why oh why are sane reasonable people wasting their time with this shit.

        In most spheres of physics we put forward ideas and then test to see if those ideas are proveable and repeatable. We build from small ideas to larger models and then see if our models are consistent and accurate. We then take glee in trying to prove the model wrong or inaacurate. Only if the model matches observation and we find no conflicts do we begin to trust it.

        To let you know how accurate the large model for climatologists is look at the weather prediction in your news paper.

        The problem is they're trying to run before they'ved walked. They have no big model that is provably accurate so they have to guess. They are not sure as to just what influences our weather let alone to what extent. Ask them how much influence the sun or the earths core temp or the annual freezing of the southern oceans contribute to our weather and all they can do is shrug their shoulders and talk in non specifics.

        So how as an intelligent person are you meant to interpet their findings and conclusions? I think that the findings are most likely accurate when they talk about discrete facts e.g. the level of CO2 in ice cores is less the further down the same core you go. But when they draw conclusions they are just blowing smoke the more assumptions the more smoke e.g. higher CO2 means higher temperature, therefore the level of CO2 measured in ice cores proves the temperatures years ago were less therefore we have global warming therefore etc etc

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Qzukk]

higher CO2 means higher temperature

That would be a rather circular reasoning method, since the purpose of this is to try and prove that greenhouse gasses cause higher temperatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core suggests that the way to tell what the temperature was at the time is to compare hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, and is backed up by http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Pas t.html. I believe you can also determine how cold it was when the water froze by measuring the oxygen in the ice, the colder it is, the faster it freezes, and the more air bubbles get trapped in it (see your freezer's icecubes for details) but this might not work for thin layers of precipitation, especially snow.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[slimjim8094]

All you did was spout excuses - as far as I could make out, the only substantive thing you were saying was that they couldn't predict weather %100 accurately, therefore we shouldn't be predicting climate change over ~30 years. And, global warming aside, carbon dioxide is the cause of the greenhouse effect. So, we'd be screwed without it. However, with too much, more heat is trapped... it is a pretty logical "assumption", and I don't see why it's blowing smoke.

Weather forecasts are pretty accurate. And these global warming predictions are even less specific to area. All you should have to do to be scared is realize that: 1) higher CO2=higher temperatures (the greenhouse effect) and 2) it takes several years for changes on the surface to propagate into the upper atmosphere.

So, we pump CO2 into the atmosphere, and even if it was possible to stop emissions tomorrow, it would still take ten years for those changes to take effect.

I guess what I'm saying is: how would you like to find out (through experience) that global warming existed when your house was flooded by melting polar ice caps, and know that you still had ten more years of worsening conditions?

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[PoconoPCDoctor]

I am 54 years old. 44 years ago, I remeber walking home from midnight mass in a blizzard. This was in NY City, and garbage trucks had to pile snow and the end of the streets since there was no where to plow it all. We had snow mountains for a month or so. All of this is anecdotal, and certainly not a "geological" time period.

And yet, I have noticed changes which seem to be born out by hard data that something is happening over a period of 29 years, namely that in certain key areas, such as Alaska in the western hemisphere, things seem to be warming significantly.

While I don't think anyone here is saying it's still okay to buy a Hummer because CO2 cannot be proven as yet to increase global warming, I think we need to take a really hard look at what we can do planetwide to decrease CO2 emissions at the very least.

Other comments in this thread sarcastically decry the "religion" of global warming. Let's see, I drive a Prius, have replaced all light bulbs in my house with low energy flourescents, and hope to be trained in the Climate Project's slide show that was the basis for "An Inconvenient Truth." Give me that old time religion...

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Coryoth]

To let you know how accurate the large model for climatologists is look at the weather prediction in your news paper.

There is, of course, a vast difference between predicting weather - which is a local phenomena, with significant specificity - and predicting the climate trends - which is averaging general trends globally. Consider, for instance, that it is very hard to stand on a beach and predict the exact height and shape of the next wave and precisely where and when it will break. On the other hand predicting the approximate height and time of the next high tide is rather easier. GCMs are, indeed, currently rather poor at making predictions down to the level of day to day local weather. They have, however, been very accurate at predicting year on year global climate.

They are not sure as to just what influences our weather let alone to what extent. Ask them how much influence the sun or the earths core temp or the annual freezing of the southern oceans contribute to our weather and all they can do is shrug their shoulders and talk in non specifics.

As noted above, contrary to your claim, the models have proved to be remarkably robust and accurate. They are also, contrary to popular perception in some circles, not just a big pattern matching machine that are "trained" on past data. They are models that are fed in physics. Yes, there are some tweakable parameters, as there should be in any model where there is some uncertainty. The greatest area of uncertainty in models currently is clouds, since they can be both a positive or negative feedback depending on the exact nature of their formation. Of course this problem is taken very seriously and there is a lot of study. The last IPCC report had considerable detail summarising that work. The simple reality, however, is that the models have worked pretty well, and have, in fact, made significant predictions that have since been observed.

But when they draw conclusions they are just blowing smoke the more assumptions the more smoke e.g. higher CO2 means higher temperature, therefore the level of CO2 measured in ice cores proves the temperatures years ago were less therefore we have global warming therefore etc etc

Historical temperatures from ice-cores are determined by ratios of hydrogen or oxygen isotopes in the ice. The guts of the issue is that when combined in water the different isotopes, being different masses, fractionate out at slightly different temperatures, thus the exact isotope ratio is a function of many things, but a very signficant factor is the prevailing temperature at the time the water became vapout before precipitting out. Thus the ratio, while not an exact indication of specific temperatures (unless the many other factors are also accounted for), is a good indicator of general temperature trends over long time scales. For more detail see here. The result is that, using ice cores, we can plot temperature and carbon dioxide independently.

Furthermore, more recent temperature reconstructions (as in reconstructions of only the past 1000 years or so) rely not on ice cores but on a wide variety of sources including coral, tree rings, glaciers, and more. Usually many of these different methods are cross referenced with each other to create any single reconstruction. The results can be seen in this plot of 10 different reconstructions by different independent teams. The results, as you can see, while different, all show the same trend. If you're still uncertain, feel free to use the

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Usquebaugh]

First off I never said global warming in my post, I never said if it was fact or fiction. I never said if the world was getting hotter or colder. I pointed out the flaws as I see them in the current reasoning in climatology. That's all, in my opinion climatology is not based on sound scientific principals.

Climatology is not alone, string theory is another area that has made no accurate models or predictions. But string theorists aren't running round claiming they've got anything more than a very weak idea.

Your post starts off saying my post lack substance and then goes on to make my case for me!

Carbon dixoide is not the sole cause of anything. It's part of a system that we as yet do not understand in anything but the most basic terms.

Weather forecasts are accurate up to about three days. After that the models used to predict the weather break down. The reason for the models failure is a lack of precision, the butterfly flapping it's wings takes over. But they are the most accurate prediction model we have for the climate. Every other model that has been built has been shown not only to be inaacurate but wildly inaccurate. I would love for you to prove me wrong here and give me a link to a model that has proven accuracy i.e. it predicted our climate and that prediction happened.

10years? Where did that number come from, bit like the ten commandments, someone made it up. When the east coast had their power stations offline the change in the atmosphere was measurable the next day, sulphur levels plummetted.

Don't get me wrong the weather always changes but man is not yet in any sort of position to make long term predicitons about the climate. If we are unable to accurtely predict the weather how can we talk about it changing, we have no baseline to measure from. How can we talk about what affects our climate if we do not know how it works. And most frigtheningly how can we progress if people are willing to accept clairvoyance as fact.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Usquebaugh]

I'm not from the US and I only came around in '68 but I remember tales of the winters of the early 60s. As a youngster I was miffed we didn't get good snow like the olden days :-)

The question is was this normal or abnormal for winter at that time. Back in the day the Thames used to freeze over and they would have a fair on the ice. But before that in the middle ages it was warm and mild.

Also, I do remember the summer of '76 in the UK, glorious warm and mild. Of course every other summer was lously and I moved to California because of it. I hear the last summer was pretty good.

I agree there are a number of data points that are moving, but what does that mean? Is it part of a natural cycle, is it a response to a natural event, is it a response to mans actions. Should I be worried, should I take action, what action, when, how.

Again targeting one variable, CO2, in a complex system is doomed to failure. All the more so, if we do not understand what all the variables are and how they interact.

I'm not saying the weather doesn't change I am saying man cannot predicte it or it's causes with any certainty. I go further and say we as yet do not fully comprehend our eco-system. To base any overt action on climatology is to base your actions on clairvoyance.

I tend towards a centered disposition, so acting without action whould seem to be me to be the best action. This can quite easily be mistaken for acting like an ostrich but can never be mistaken for acting without cause.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Usquebaugh]

Agreed that long term climate predictions are different to short term weather forecasts. But the graphs given do not seem to show a high dgree of accuracy but rather a high degree of correlation i.e. they tend to show the correct deflection but not magnitude. The analogy of the waves vs the tides is pretty good. The less precison you want and the more variables you can eliminate the better the prediciton.

        Hansen's prediction was basically it's going to get warmer over the next ten or so years unless we have a volcano in which case it will still get warmer only not so fast. His paper was then mis-quoted by a skeptic to try and show how the climatologists were inept. Two points, ten years is not a geological time frame. His graph shows very large swings in the observed tack, sometimes falling outside all three of his predictions. I cannot see how this is meant to show how good his models are, rather it gives a very good indication of his models failings.

        The links to a AntiSkeptic FAQ can hardly be considered impartial. The FAQ also seems to fly in the face of good science, claiming that using historical data to prove a models validity is good enough to trust it's forward predictions. And those forward predictions are good enough to justify radical action on the behalf of the human race! Link to prime sources e.g. his original paper.

        I am impressed by Hansen though he seems able to hold a firm belief that he is right but also entertain the idea that the skeptics have some valid points that if true might overturn his beliefs. His rebbutal of his detractors was a model in restraint.

        Obviously our definitions of 'remarkably robust and accurate' are different. The graphs you provide show have the general trend but that's about it. A moving average would also follow the trend. If the models are no better than a moving average why should people use them?

        The ice cores are an interesting area. Personally I feel the temperature trend rather more than a specific temperature is important. They are much more useful to show what has happened and get a pattern for how temperature has changed over time in that location than they are a reliable measurment of global temperature.

        Your post did motivate me to do some of my own graphs though. I'm curious just how close one can model the earths surface temperature using simple stats e.g. moving average etc. I'm also very interested to see if using sun activity alone is enough to model historical temperature swings, my guess is that it would be. Guess I'll have to bust out GNU Plot again :-(

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Coryoth]

Two points, ten years is not a geological time frame. His graph shows very large swings in the observed tack, sometimes falling outside all three of his predictions. I cannot see how this is meant to show how good his models are, rather it gives a very good indication of his models failings.

And geological time-frames aren't really relevant to the discussion. The current change is, relatively speaking, rapid, and most predictions are only looking at the 10 to 100 year time scale. They don't need to be able to predict over geological time scales - they need to be able to deal with the time scale of observed change. As to his graph: indeed, it isn't a point for point match, but it is suprisingly close. The real question is "what is the source of the error"? The largest area, where the observed dips below all 3 scenarios is the year Pinatubo erupted. Hansen's scenario B and C had volcano factored in a few years later - and from that point on we are back to a close match. So the problem that prevented close pointwise matching was Hansen's inability to predict when a volcano would erupt - he could, however, make statistical assessements of the likelihood and factor it in to the long term predictions. He didn't get the year right, but averaging out past that he actually did remarkably well. The reality is that the greatest source of error in current climate models in our predictions of what future emissions will be - that's the big unknown.

The links to a AntiSkeptic FAQ can hardly be considered impartial. The FAQ also seems to fly in the face of good science, claiming that using historical data to prove a models validity is good enough to trust it's forward predictions.

I was rather more worried about the content than the source - the details of GCM predictions that have been observed in practice are referenced so you can follow those up if you care to. The point was simply that GCMs have made a number of predictions that have since been observed; an anti-skeptic FAQ simply proved the fastest easiest way to find that information presented conveniently in one source. As to whether success at predicting the past counts toward ability to predict the future: if the models are no being trained on the data in question, but instead programmed on principles - and let's be clear: these are not neural nets, nor pattern matching machines that are trained on past data - then their ability to predict the past is still a good indicator. Much of science actually works this way. The theory of evolution makes predictions on past data, and yet still claims to be able to make predictions with regard to the future. Much of cosmology uses data of events that have already happened on which to test their predictions. The trouble arises when you make use of the past data to make your prediction; assuming the conclusion if you like; that is indeed rather dodgy. It is also not what is being done with climate models.

The graphs you provide show have the general trend but that's about it. A moving average would also follow the trend. If the models are no better than a moving average why should people use them?

Because a moving average requires the data you are trying to predict to be fed into it to be able to make the prediction. Climate models are neural nets, they are not regressions, they are not predictive analytics. Climate models mathematical and physical models. You don't feed them all your historical data to train them to make predictions. You give them some base points, and you may well use some historical data to verify parameters, but it is a quite different than a moving average which cannot "predict" data it has never seen.

I'm also very interested to see if using sun activity alone is enough to model historical temperature swings, my guess is that it would be. Guess I'll have to bust out GNU Plot again

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Anonymous Coward]

"To let you know how accurate the large model for climatologists is look at the weather prediction in your news paper."

This crap is modded 'insightful'?!

Ask someone whether the average temperature in NY will be higher next July or next December? Most people will get this right without a single computer model or day's study of climatology or meteorology. Hell, I can't predict the outcome of the next toss of a coin more than one time in two, but I can still tell you with some accuracy how many heads will come up in a thousand coin tosses. Why? Because different things are being predicted.

Weather is not climate. Weather prediction is not climate prediction. Today's climate models can tell you that December will be hotter than July or that the Bahamas will be hotter than New England, with above 99.9% accuracy, for days, weeks or years ahead. But just insinuate that next year will be hotter than this year and suddenly every dickwad is trotting out stories of how the WNKR predicted rain for last Tuesday and how stupid they felt for carrying a umbrella around all day in the bright sunshine.

I'm thinking of starting a list of the top 25 stupid objections to global warming (like has been done for evolution). This would be #1, closely followed by "#2 Water vapor causes 80/90/99 percent of the greenhouse effect." (water vapor makes up around 80% of the atmospheres greenhouse gasses by volume, it is responsible for 80% of global warming in the same way that the 99% of legal and responsible gun-owners commit 99% of gun-crime!).

It wouldn't stop r-tards spouting this bull, but it'd save me a lot of typing.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Burnhard]

Can I ask you to interpret the temperature/carbon graph? Yes there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but what interests me are the peaks on the graph every 100,000 years or so which seem to occur without human interference. Moreover, the peaks occur extremely rapidly (it looks like a "crash") and then decrease slowly towards the next peak (the "recovery"). Isn't this just a perfectly normal atmospheric cycle, although over geological time?

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Coryoth]

The thing you're probably looking for is Milankovitch cycles which account for the basic cycle of climate change every 100,000 years. You might also note that in the naturally occuring climate changes the temperature leads carbon dioxide - the orbital cycle causes an initial temperature change which results in a feedback cycle of more CO2 (warmer oceans can retain less CO2). Of course the orbital effects are insufficient to explain the degree of warming - to explain that we need to note that once a CO2 increase has been initiated by the orbital cycle it then feeds back on itself with CO2 causing significantly more warming. Note, however, that the current warming, and the current spike in CO2, do note fall into line with these natural cycles, so they aren't the caue of recent warming: in fact we're currently in the middle of an interglacial and should be expecting (relatively) steady climate for the next 40,000 years or so.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[PoconoPCDoctor]

I'm not a big fan of soon to be ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, but he recently said "What is not in doubt is that the scientific evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is now overwhelming," in remarks made at the Royal Society in London.

My family and I visited London in 2003 - it was one of the hottest summers ever in Europe. The Underground was almost dangerously hot - and our room at the Gate Hotel in Notting Hill had no AC. We had no problem sleeping, since sightseeing all day helps you get to sleep pretty quickly, but it was warm at night. I first traveled to London in 1972, also in the summer, and remember much cooler weather and definitely cool nights. Again, anecdotal, but real enough to me.

I think the concentration on one aspect of possible causes to climate change is necessary if not the best scientific way, since if you want to change people's opinions about life style changes on a global scale, it's hard to mention every variable that might affect the planet without confusing or diluting the message.

If you've been to http://climatecrisis.net/ recently, you'll see an aerial picture of the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic - Haiti's side has been stripped bare of all foliage. When there are storms, mudslides result, usually killing many people. The DR side is lush, green - just as you'd expect in this area - but they have enforced policies against cutting down forests that protect the land and stop soil erosion.

So while the focus on CO2 emissions might seem misplaced, please understand that it's a way to get other ecological messages out, and I think that "An Inconvenient Truth" might turn out to be one of the most important films ever made, if it prods the countries of this world to stop behaving as if we can simply strip bare the planet and pollute willy-nilly withoust serious planetwide consequences.

Have a great Thanksgiving and the Beatles Rule!

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[The_Quinn]

how would you like to find out (through experience) that global warming existed when your house was flooded by melting polar ice caps, and know that you still had ten more years of worsening conditions?

How would you like to find out (through experience) that you couldn't afford a house, becuase the cost of goods and services were rising due to stifling regulations across many industries, all based on uncertain science and the desire to sacrifice living generations for the sake of some unknown future generation's alleged 'standard of living'.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[KeensMustard]

I agree there are a number of data points that are moving, but what does that mean? Is it part of a natural cycle, is it a response to a natural event, is it a response to mans actions. Should I be worried, should I take action, what action, when, how.

Since the shifts in temperature we have observed correlate to the output of climate models, it seems reasonable to conclude that these shifts are the result of greenhouse gas emissions from anthropological sources.

Again targeting one variable, CO2, in a complex system is doomed to failure. All the more so, if we do not understand what all the variables are and how they interact.

Obviously, there is an element of optimism, if we wanted to be pessimistic we should all lay down and die right now. But since we have demonstrated that we are capable of (inadvertantly) causing the problem, it's reasonable to assume that by deliberate action, we can reverse the trend if we act now. And not just target CO2, but all forms of greenhouse gas emission.

I'm not saying the weather doesn't change I am saying man cannot predicte it or it's causes with any certainty. I go further and say we as yet do not fully comprehend our eco-system. To base any overt action on climatology is to base your actions on clairvoyance.

But, as previous discussed on multiple occasions, we are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. If you do not understand the difference, are you really qualified to criticise climatologists? If a doctor said to you "You've got cancer" is it reasonable to say "but I felt fine last tuesday - HAH! explain that! You must be wrong! - I'll do nothing". No: the reasonable course of action is to listen to the facts, to weigh the facts against the authority of the person stating them, and then act. And act immediately - not prevaricate, not procrastinate.

I tend towards a centered disposition, so acting without action whould seem to be me to be the best action. This can quite easily be mistaken for acting like an ostrich but can never be mistaken for acting without cause.

When considering an issue of some consequence, I always adopt a risk-based approach. If I feel a lingering form of sickness, I go to the doctor, rather than hope it gets better by itself. If I find signs of white ants in my house, I call an inspector, rather than rely on the chance that the ants will leave my house alone. If I hear reports of government corruption or collusion, I do what I can to make sure the matter is pursued, rather than trust them to always do the right thing without oversight.

So, there is a chance that science is wrong, but science is probably right. What would a risk based approach tell us?

Risk #1

Major climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions from humans: Probable

Consequence: Extreme

Recommendation: Mitigate

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. Anyone who cites realclimate.org can no longer be taken seriously in anything they say. That is a well-known scare site which presents a very biased view of the science while whipping up personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with them.

It was set up initially to slander McKitrick and McIntyre in one of the low points of this whole sorry episode. Read it and weep. It's hallmark is asserting that something has been proved so there is no need to study it any more, while avoiding responding to any legitimate criticism.

Where have we heard that before?

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Anonymous Coward]

"..in fact we're currently in the middle of an interglacial and should be expecting (relatively) steady climate for the next 40,000 years or so."

And there was me thinking that we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, and so should be expecting (relatively) rising temperatures for the next few hundred years or so. What caused the warming from 1850-1950?

Why not ask Mann et al what has happened to the Mediæval Warm Period? The scare brigade are on record as trying to suppress all evidence of natural variation so they can claim that any rise must be due to human intervention.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Coryoth]

The "little" part of the the little ice age is really very little compared to the temperature differences between ice ages and interglacials. Have look at the reconstructions of past temperature - yes there are wobbles and natural variation, and there's even a medieval warm period - that doesn't stop the current rise from looking quite significant.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Usquebaugh]

Agreed that climate and weather are different predictions. But the current climate prediction models are not accurate for anything other than hand waving. They are certainly not accurate enough to base action upon.

I think it would be better to list the top 100 things that cause our climate. Then sit down and assign weightings to each one. Then go outside and thank the sun for being reasonably stable.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Usquebaugh]

So it's OK to lie so long as you have some grander ulterior motive! Re-read your post and seriously ask yourself if this is a sane and rational idea.

It's madness couched in the terms of science.

Why not just point out that in fact the world is our only available eco-system. Then go on and point out that although you have no solid basis you feel that it would all be for the best if everybody behaved in a way you found acceptable.

I'll tell you why, you know damn well eveybody would agree with the first statement and laugh in your face at the second.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Usquebaugh]

The climate models were built to follow the data points. Think about it how much validity would you have in a model if it didn't follow the know data points. So now you want to say look our model follows the data points so it must explain the system. That is just not valid reasoning, it's fallacy.

There is no proof that man either makes the weather better or worse. We have some idea that our actions slightly influence the weather but we have zero predictive accuracy. But don't let that stop you from planning to trigger volcanos with nukes or dumping iron in the ocean by the mega tonne.

Careful, weather and climate are the same thing but at different levels of granularity.

Your willingness to act decisively is a sign of arrogance and youthfulness. If it was just your existence at stake then I rather think I'd let you go ahead and act the quicker the better. But it's not just you and your belief system at stake, is it? So cool your heals and think some more.

I believe in the way. In my experience action is very rarely needed and when it is moderation is the action needed most. My society and that of most of the world lives out of step with the way, but it is not my role to change it. I have enough faults within my person to contemplate without trying to correct my perception of faults in others.

If the last paragraph sounds like gibberish then you probably need to sit down and have a cup of tea.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[Usquebaugh]

Geological time frames are central to the discussion. If people are saying what is happening now has never happened before then we should be able to go back and prove those statements. The scale of observed change is a problem if we cannot use the same scale within historical data.

There is more than one place his models don't capture the extremes of the observation. I'm not saying it's 100% wrong I am saying based on that graph his model is not accurate to anything more than saying it's going to get slightly warmer.

The problem with historical data is that the data is known. If you make a model and then compare it to historical data what do you do if your model fails? You probably tweak it to match the data. After all a model that is shown not to follow historical data is not going to be trusted for predictions.

Are you saying that we have an accurate model built by people who never built such a model before and who never tweaked the model based upon comparisons to historical data? Of course not. You know damn well that the models have taken decades to get where they are and most of that progress has been made by looking at historical records and pondering why your model doesn't match recorded data.

Face facts all current models are built or verified by comparisons to historical data.

The only judge of a model is future prediction. You are talking predicting 10-20 years out. I am saying that at present we do not have the models to do that with any level of accuracy. Go back and look at the predicitons made by models in 1987, trends is all they got right if that.

I fully understand the difference between a model and a moving average. It would appear you cannot understand that if the same answer comes from two different systems then both systems are equally accurate for the question asked. Who cares how they got the answer if the answer is all you are interested in. Now when given many questions you can start to see which system is the more accurate for a given range of questions and which one you are going to trust more for predictions.

Of course a moving average can be used for prediction, it's just the further out it goes the less likely it is to be accurate.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[PoconoPCDoctor]

Dang. This really pushes your buttons, doesn't it? Don't have a cow. Be an ostrich.

Start calling people liars and you won't have a lot of friends. I'm not a scientist, and I don;t think you are either, but the evidence is pretty compelling that we have to try something to reduce CO2, as well as a addressing myriad of other ecological disasters.

So behave any way you want - it doesn't matter, right?

I do think that ostrich thing is you all over.

Re:20yrs is not a geological timeframe

[PoconoPCDoctor]

"I believe in the way. In my experience action is very rarely needed and when it is moderation is the action needed most. My society and that of most of the world lives out of step with the way, but it is not my role to change it. I have enough faults within my person to contemplate without trying to correct my perception of faults in others.

Do enlighten - always looking for "the way." Stopped drinking tea along time ago. Coffee is my caffeine delivery system.

Is there only one way, master, or many paths to enlightenment?

Others believe "the way" involves flying planes into buildings. That whole "religion" thing has lost it's way with me.

H2O is #1, CO2 is #2, CH4 is #3. Mod parent up

[cdn-programmer]

Mod parent up.

Shitty moderation is not going to shut anyone up. This is NOTM/b> subject to political correctness any more than it is subject to a vote.

For a moderator to mod the parent "FlameBait" illustrates just how awful the moderation can be. Arrggghhhh.

CO2 is blamed for global warming yet the paleoclimate records show there is no correlation.

Re:CO2 does leave the atmosphere easily

[cdn-programmer]

CO2 actually does leave the atmosphere easily. Plants literally grow out of the air. This is where their Carbon comes from. The expected life of CO2 in the atmosphre is anywhere from 15 to about 50 years and its probably closer to the 15 than the 50.

Furthermore plants grow faster with the increase of CO2. This is proven and clearly obvious... obvious to any layman who can think and totally obvious to any intelligent biologist since they have been doing greenhouse studies on this for decades.

Since plant life growth rates increase we end up with additional CO2 stimulating plant growth and a new steady state is achieved within a couple decades. This is clearly NOT something our global warming folks want to hear... because their theories end up in the trash can unless they can constantly increase CO2 for ever and ever.

Note: Mankind's activities have clearly increased the amount of H2O in the atmosphere since we divert entire rivers via irrigation. For our climate modelers to claim that since H2O is short lived there is no net increase is the same as saying the humidifier in my house won't work since the water will be lost fairly soon after it is introduced. These ideas completely ignore the fact that H2O is being constantly pumped into the atmosphere via many mechanisms including burning fuel... irrigating lawns, running humidifiers in dry areas, and of course - wide spread irrigation.

The thing is we havn't been able to measure the H2O levels accurately. Thus people choose to wave their arms and say this effect is a "constant". To do so is to set change in the most significant variable to zero. One cannot have much faith in models which ignore the most significant variables.

Glad to help....

[PHAEDRU5]

I decided to just build hot taco salads at Jose's Mexican Buffet, avoiding refried beans completely. I'm happy to do my p(h)art to save the world.

Water vapor, anyone?

[MadMorf]

From NewScientist: "Although this is good news, it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again, and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change."

Um, yeah.

The 800 pound gorilla of climate change is really water vapor, but let's not talk about that...

Re:Water vapor, anyone?

[Jugalator]

Of climate change, or of the greenhouse effect?

There's a difference here, and it lies in what's causing the estimating climate changes.

Is that more due to rising H20 levels or rising CO2 levels?

Re:Water vapor, anyone?

[catchblue22]

Oh for chrisakes!!! There are many posts above explaining this. To summarize, overall water vapor does not force the climate to a different state because of its short lifetime in the atmosphere. Water vapor content in the atmosphere is a reaction to other factors in the climate system, such as CO2.

Water vapor can however reinforce other changes. If CO2 concentrations increase, then this will cause the climate to warm. In general, a warmer climate will likely mean more water vapor in the atmosphere, which will in turn cause more warming because the vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

If you want a better explanation, read some of the above comments or go to realclimate.org.

I am sick of people posting comments like "water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2" in the full knowledge that this will create misconceptions in people with less understanding of the concepts of climate change. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE IGNORED WATER VAPOR IN THEIR MODELS?!!

I'm not great at math, but...

[kermit1221]

"methane underwent double-digit growth ... rising from 1,520 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1978 to 1,767..."

Let's see;
1767 - 1520 = 247

Isn't 247 triple digit?

Re:I'm not great at math, but...

[funwithBSD]

I think they meant percent change, not total increase.

But then, if they are vauge they are not helping people understand the issues.

Re:I'm not great at math, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah You're right.... you're not good at maths, double digit growth refers to the percentage growth (1767-1520)/1520 is 16.25% change

Re:I'm not great at math, but...

[kermit1221]

Then they should have posted numbers and percentages, or spoken in percentages. They supplied the numbers as whole numbers and then called them something they weren't. Pretty basic.

Re:H2O is #1, CO2 is #2, CH4 is #3. Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 is blamed for global warming yet the paleoclimate records show there is no correlation.

You seem to know a lot. So maybe you could then find me a single proper paper appearing in a real peer reviewed scientific journal in the last decade that says CO2 isn't to blame for global warming.

If you're going to spout off about how increasing CO2 emissions isn't a problem when the rest of the world thinks it is you could at least provide a link to your nonsense you're trying to pass as fact.

This is huge.

[dangermen]

Believe it or not, this is huge. The CO2 as the 800 pound gorilla is not quite right. Methane is MANY times more stronger a green house gas than CO2. In fact, the United States pays BIG money to the former Soviet Union to get them to contain methane leaks because any gain on methane emissions is huge.

The Bullet In the Coffin: Accurate Stat Statements

[fygment]

So "... it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again ...". That is correct. But only used to prevent the appearance of not toeing the party line of how all greenhouse gases are on the rise. Will we ever see equally correct statements in print today such as:

And the rise of CO2 levels "does not mean that they will not descend again".

And the rise in temperatures "does not mean that they will not lower again".

No. We'll only repeatedly see:

And the fact that our models were wrong many times "does not mean that they won't be right sometime".

Science is lost when it goes public.

This Little Light Of Mine

[VegeBrain]

I guess this is what happens when so many people light their own farts.

"... it is unclear why ..." oh ain't it though?

[fygment]

But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why.

Yes. Unclear. But one must assume it must only be a minor (and temporary) effect that will not detract from the alarming global changes that are forecast. Right? It could not possibly be revealing the fact that so much is not understood about the atmosphere that any current attempt at drawing firm conclusions about the present state (let alone future states) is pure guessing. And while guessing isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it becomes bad when you use it to further your own personal or political agendas.

Re:H2O is #1, CO2 is #2, CH4 is #3. Mod parent up

[bwy]

Heh... well, now you see the whole problem with the issue of global warming and the reason why people believe what they believe. A few people get silenced, the rest find a way to be extremely vocal, and guess who the masses will follow.

Global vs Local

[Anonymous Coward]

While global levels are now steady I have just detected a series of local fluctuations. Must have been something I ate.

Re:CO2 does leave the atmosphere easily

[ppanon]

Note: Mankind's activities have clearly increased the amount of H2O in the atmosphere since we divert entire rivers via irrigation.

Last I heard, the oceans covered 2/3rd of the surface of the Earth. It should be pretty clear that, in contrast, evaporation through irrigation on arable land (a fraction of the remaining 1/3) will be a drop in the bucket.

The same can't be said for the production of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels versus organic processes. And I have never seen spontaneous precipitation of liquid or frozen CO2, but I have seen a lot of rain and snow when humidity levels get high enough. It's pretty clear to me that there are non-biological processes for the regulation of water-vapour content in the atmosphere that don't have an equivalent for CO2. It seems therefore plausible to me that CO2 would have a higher risk of continuing increase than water vapour.

And that is also incorrect

[WindBourne]

While the bulk of the arctic ice is in the ocean, Greenland and the tundras (candian, Russian, American) have huge volumes of ice. There will be issue if all of this ice melts. The greenland glaciers will raise the ocean some none trivial amount. And the tundra ice melt is more important for the sun that it reflects. If that stops, the perma-frost is defrosted AND large amounts of CO2 AND CH4 (methane) will be released.

Natural gas prices and methane leaks

[TheSync]

I think it may be related to the rise in natural gas prices, and the natural urge for gas producers to go plug up leaks at those prices.

Natural gas production is the leading source of Russian methane emissions, for instance. And in 1990, Russia leaked as much as 26 million tons of methane. It was probably worth their while to plug some of these leaks at current prices.

OMG, Shuddup You Damn Oil Company Lover!

[Lensar]

I'm pretty tired of you right-wing anti-environmentalists always trying to throw a wet blanket over our moral panic.

Consensus has been reached. No further debate is possible. We've figured it all out. All of it. The earth is going to end in a matter of years if we don't immediately stop all progress and revert to living in trees. I've already picked out mine. If you're smart, you'll stop arguing and pick out yours before all the good ones are claimed.

Re:The Bullet In the Coffin: Accurate Stat Stateme

[cnerd2025]

I lost all faith in (pseudo)-scientific (pseudo)-"studies" and the so-called media that reports them when, a few years ago, some study was published that said pregnant women should not drink water. Riiiight... Just like Sweet-n-Low will give me cancer (if I drink the equivalent of 350 soft drinks a day). These "scientific" conclusions are ridiculous. I might as well come out and say, "water must kill because 100% of all people who drink it, die." Of course, an astute person would recognize the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, but most people buy into this garbage.

My grandmother suffered from hypochondriasis before she died. On one of my last visits with her, she was convinced she had a kidney stone. It turned out she had a urinary tract infection. After the ruckus of taking her to the hospital - she claimed she needed an ambulance - she was treated with antibiotics and told to drink lots of water. Later in the day, back at her house, she was on the phone talking to someone and she said, "if I had a blockage, they would have admitted me; but I didn't, so they sent me home." My mother quietly whispered, "if I had been hit by a bus, I would have been killed; but I wasn't, so I'm still here."

The media and certain "advocacy groups" have an interest in human-caused global warming. In fact, I think I'd trust Geraldo Rivera with information about where and with whom I'm cheating on my wife before trusting the (mis)-information given in these "studies". I might even tell him in a place with lots of sticks and sand and live cameras. Al Gore, the "Inconvenient Truth" man, claims to have "taken the initiative" of "creating the internet" during his Senate service. Did he also take the initiative to ride in those huge black GM SUVs? I'm more pissed about my tax dollars paying for the gas which only goes about 10 MPG than I am about causing "global warming" because I'm wasteful.

Al, look in the mirror man. First, we (humans) aren't causing global warming. Second, if anyone is causing global warming, it's fat-asses who bitch about "lock-boxes" and how awful our world is. I wonder if they're not worse than OJ Simpson. At least OJ says he wrote the book and did the interview for the money.

Re:H2O is #1, CO2 is #2, CH4 is #3. Mod parent up

[A beautiful mind]

It's actually pretty tiring to refute you ignoramuses point by point every time...

Re:Methane

[ArcherB]

Damn! And I just farted! Methane levels are now rising from where I sit.

Well, I guess it was good while it lasted!

Re:Doesn't that tell you *Anything*?

[TapeCutter]

Do you realise that the computer chip you used to generate that bit of flamebait would not exist without computer models.

The whole endevour of scientific inquiry consists of applying models to data, just because a model is not perfect does not mean it is not usefull (eg: Newtonian mechanics).

For your edification: Here are some common myths about the hockey stick from the people who created the original (Mann, et al)

CowboyNeal dead ?!?!

[ManyLostPackets]

Multiple news sites are reporting that levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane, have stabilized

NOOOOOOOOOO!

Re:CO2 does leave the atmosphere easily

[CheshireCatCO]

Wow, that post is full of misinformation, it's difficult to know where to begin.

Yes, *some* types of plants grow better in higher concentrations of CO2. Not all, some. That's important because there are a lot of different kinds of plants on this planet and they don't all react in the same way to their environments. (In fact, I seem to recall that some types of plants grow worse in higher CO2 environments. It'd be a pity if those includes grasses, wouldn't it?)

So you're "obvious" fact is, as obvious facts often are, at least partially wrong. But never mind facts. What's worse is that the CO2-loving plants don't help that much. Even the researchers who have shown the correlation between CO2 and grown rates admit that right in their papers. One of the reasons for that is that plants just don't take up that much CO2 on our planet. Look at where the carbon is. Even if they did take up a large fraction of the total, there's no reason to think that they can take up much *more* than they already do. Do you honestly think that lack of CO2 has been limiting plant growth all these millions of years? The plants need other nutrients, water, and sunlight to grow. These are much more likely to limit the growth of the plants than CO2.

AND, say that plants like corn (shown to grown faster in extra CO2) did take up a significant fraction of the CO2 from the atmosphere. What do you plan to do with it when corn does what it always does int he fall: die? Since you claim to understand biology, do you know where that CO2 goes? Yep, back into the air as the planet matter decays. Whoops.

I won't touch your rant about water except to say that water isn't very important toward the anthropomorphic greenhouse effect since water already is doing most of the absorbing it can do.

The Start of a New Trend

[Psiven]

Oh shit, now we've got to worry about global cooling!

Re:CO2 does leave the atmosphere easily

[RsG]

The same can't be said for the production of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels versus organic processes. And I have never seen spontaneous precipitation of liquid or frozen CO2, but I have seen a lot of rain and snow when humidity levels get high enough. It's pretty clear to me that there are non-biological processes for the regulation of water-vapour content in the atmosphere that don't have an equivalent for CO2. It seems therefore plausible to me that CO2 would have a higher risk of continuing increase than water vapour.

Actually, CO2 concentrations are mediated by biological processes, in much the same way water is. So, while it doesn't precipitate, it does indeed leave the atmosphere easily; if it didn't, we'd be awful short of oxygen.

The problem is the net amount of carbon in the system. Biological activity (and this includes man-made activity like farming or biofuel production) has no net impact on the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle; what gets added to the air by respiration or by combustion of biofuel/wood/waste gets removed by photosynthesis (even if this isn't immediate, it will have to balance out due to conservation of matter). However, carbon locked up in fossil fuels has been outside of that cycle for millions of years; our reintroduction of it into the air is the root problem.

There is no equivalent with the hydrological cycle. We move water around a lot, but we don't add or remove it; digging wells, or irrigation canals, or creating reservoirs doesn't alter the net amount of water in circulation. There could be a disequilibrium of water due to human activity (that is, we lower the amount of water in aquifers, and raise the amount of vapor in the air), but that's not going to have the same impact as causing a net increase in circulating CO2.

Thank Europe, not the US

[Anonymous Coward]

It's EU and other entities that made this happen. The US does absolutely nothing for global ecology. As one of the US presidents put it, "our economy is above ecology".

Don't blame africa for that

[Anonymous Coward]

they cattle there don't eat well enough to produce a lot of methane. Goats are also more popular (more meat per kg of vegetation and will eat more types of vegetation than cattle.

The western cattle are overfed and juiced to the eyeballs to produce the most meat per hoof and this causes inefficient digestion and THAT is the cause of much of the methane produced by cattle.

Holding on?

[JFMulder]

Population rising, yet methane levels have stabilized. The cause is actually more people falling in love. I predict a lot of explosions soon.

I wonder if I should explain this one...

Re:H2O is #1, CO2 is #2, CH4 is #3. Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 is blamed for global warming yet the paleoclimate records show there is no correlation.

Really?

Back on topic

[cluckshot]

Since the original discussion was of Methane levels... Methane is probably going down in the atmosphere due to methane (natural gas) extraction operations of the oil/gas industry. In Alabama about 120 Billion standard cubic feet of gas is extracted annually from coal bed methane recovery operations. (30% of State production) It is probable that 100% (and more) of that methane was escaping into the atmosphere unburned on an on going basis. Currently the extraction is by recovering ground water and extracting the gas similar to a soda fizzing. While the route of ground water movement in Alabama may have changed, it was all going out in "real time" anyway.

For those who wonder, it is probable that the conditions for generation of this methane have been suppressed by extraction operations. This is because water is part of the process. This means that large volumes of CO2 were created by decomposition of Methane due to the natural emissions. These have probably been reduced dramatically by the diversion to Man handled extraction and the loss of water to support Methane production and movement in the rock. While man uses produce C02 this also means that the amounts as a whole are probably reduced dramatically.

Don't mistake me for a supporter of the Oil/Gas industry or an opponent, I am neither. I just wanted to explain that the processes for Carbon Dioxide and Methane introduction into the atmosphere are dramatically more complex than commonly known. These processes also are much more rapid than generally known. What may or may not be known by most people is that nearly 100% of all liquid hydrocarbon or gas in the rock world wide will be expelled by the planet into the Atmosphere in the next few hundred years anyway. The human influence is probably more of just a route change than a prevention or promotion of the dispersal of this material. I am aware that many people on this forum assault any scientific reporting. If you disagree. just post against what I say. Skip moderation because that is just suppression of good discussion.

Honestly one of the great myths of the 21st century is that of the human influence in this matter. There are forces suggesting changes in the climate that are vastly greater than any human factors. These include solar variability. The sun has changed since 1900 by over 1% in brightness. (Increased) The particle flux in space is suggesting massive changes as well. There are mechanisms associated with the operations of energy flow that also suggest massive changes. All of these mechanisms dwarf by several powers of 10 any human influence. There are historical and geological records that indicate that variations here occur vastly beyond any human control. This is not an argument for the continuation of oil/gas etc. They are as used pretty dirty stuff. Pollution is enough of an argument against oil.

I am involved in development of alternative power sources for the world. It soon will be delivered (not my invention) that the human race will have unlimited energy without fuel. At that time we will have to confront the fact that energy generation itself from these fuel free sources is in fact a problem as well. The real dirty issues here are human over population and just plain arrogance. I know of 9 separate technologies that generate energy without fuel. All of these are progressing towards market presentation at one level or another. When these appear rather than being saved, the human race will be doomed by them unless we face the real issues of human behavior and of human intentions. I am well aware of just how complex these realities are.

Every time I have tried to post a few hints about what was actually going on in this area, I get moderated into oblivion like a troll or something. I am actually seeing the results and trying to tell people what is going on. This is hands on stuff and it works. I am no troll. The moderators who seem to want to blind people to the realities of just how messed up our modern science is, are the trolls.

Re:Back on topic

[emilper]

At that time we will have to confront the fact that energy generation itself from these fuel free sources is in fact a problem as well.

this is worth an "INSIGHTFUL" :)

Re:Doesn't that tell you *Anything*?

[arpad1]

Sure it tells me something: that there are good models and models that stink and it tells me which camp the GCM models fall in. That doesn't mean the models are entirely useless, they do give a good indication of who's working real hard to approximate science and who's actually doing science.

Fer instance. You don't have to go beyond "Myth #0" on your link to realclimate.org to find some pretty good examples of cheesy tendentiousness. The "hockey stick" is revealed truth because "state of the art" computer models done say it is and those state of the art computer models are incontestable because it says so in an Executive Summary of the IPCC 2001 report which is based on - wait for it - computer modeling!

And now we have a great, big surprise. Did those computer models correctly predict atmospheric methane introduction? No they didn't. That's why all these worthy fellows are scratching their heads. Perhaps there are mechanisms which aren't well understood! Perhaps there are mechanisms which haven't been discovered?!

Maybe we ought to have a pretty good idea that there aren't any large-scale influences that haven't been discovered or well characterized before we start issuing "the sky is falling" warnings. Say, how about that good, old sun? Got any "global climate" models for the sun's output over the next hundred years? No? Think maybe solar output might have, oh I don't, a measureable effect on the Earth's climate? Maybe you'd like to point out were in the various GCMs the solar output is predicted or used as an input to the models?

Maybe the models ought to be tested by predicting results that are already known? How well do those models do when predicting the observed weather in the 1950's? 60's? Any time period for which the information has already been collected? No? Maybe an inability to predict the past casts doubt on the validity of the model's ability to predict future? Waddya think?

Perhaps the models aren't anywhere near being useful for purposes other then fading the rubes and comforting the faithful. I'm sure Charles Ponzi would've found a profitable way to put them to use.

methane outgassing level ....

[Mike_E_B]

"carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change." Someone who should know, the chief of climate environmental sciences at MIT, states that the overwhelming warming gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide or methane. Since we currently do not have a clue on how to control water vapors and few ideas on methane control, the idiots at Kyoto decided to try to control carbon dioxide creation ... just because we have a few half thought through ways of controlling CO2 a little bit. Instead of spending all this money on CO2 control, it would more intelligent to invest in finding out more on understanding the water vapor problem we have. Too bad we can not expect more thought from our political leaders. Shame on all the bloodsuckers that want to take advantage and line their pockets with money made due to this brain dead policy of emphasizing CO2 control.

Level, not emissions

[Russil Wvong]

That's great news. A minor point: the title of the post is incorrect. It's the level of methane in the atmosphere which has stabilized, not emissions.

DEBATE SABOTAGE

[catchblue22]

GW denialists are sabotaging real debate here. They keep lobbing grenades into the debate, by repeatedly saying things like "H2O vapor is the real greenhouse gas". This point has been discussed many times in the above comments and has been rebutted. More information can be found here and here. I think the point of their constant harping about water vapor is to plant seeds of uncertainty in the minds of the public, in order to "position global warming as more theory than fact", as was stated in a policy paper of a right wing think tank (see Al Gore's movie).

There is a difference between having an honest debate in order to discover the truth versus entering a debate simply to muddy the issues and distract the observers of the debate from the truth. Honest debate cannot happen unless all parties in the debate are interested in discovering the truth. Posting statements with the knowledge that they have been debunked is not honest debate. It is just noise.

Re:DEBATE SABOTAGE

[Mike_E_B]

Al Gore ... Wasn't he the idiot that tried to convince the public that he invented the internet? Al Gore's science is always suspect. Politicians tend to go after problems they think they can fix. They do not have the brain power or will to seek out fundamental problems

next up: mysterious reduction in CO2?

[lpq]

From the original article:

the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why."

I can see some future articles...
"the most recent measurements of CO2 show it barely rising..."
-or-
"Recent heating of Ocean has caused an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere causing an increase in cloud cover that is expected to continue to grow for the next 30 years. Scientists believe that that if the ocean warming isn't halted (due to a recent uptick in geothermal activity believed to have been brought on by deep-core drilling attempts to develop cheap geothermal energy) that cloud cover will soon plummet the earth into an ice age not scene for the past 75,000 years.

Even though temperatures should be rising due to trapped heat from excess CO2, the heat first has to get below the increasing cloud cover to be trapped...."

etc...etc...etc.

Probably some ill-founded "hopefulness", but it seems we haven't completely discovered everything about what makes the earth tick and the planet may have a few more surprises up her sleeve before the cancer on her surface causes unprecedented warming... 'Sides, it's a good time to invest in Arctic Ocean-front Beach property...:-)

Hyrdogen economy

[Capitalist1]

Just wait until we have a fully "green" economy with fuels that burn to nothing more than water vapor. Yeah, that'll help!

Re:Doesn't that tell you *Anything*?

[TapeCutter]

"Maybe you'd like to point out were in the various GCMs the solar output is predicted or used as an input to the models?"

Not sure what to say here, the sun is included as the main "forcing", it would be an extremly poor model if it wasn't since that is the only significant source of energy reaching our planet. The site I pointed to has plenty of information on solar flux and will point you to the data and methods used, naturally it is somewhat idealised since we are talking about a model.

"Maybe the models ought to be tested by predicting results that are already known? How well do those models do when predicting the observed weather in the 1950's? 60's? Any time period for which the information has already been collected? No? Maybe an inability to predict the past casts doubt on the validity of the model's ability to predict future? Waddya think?"

You seem like an intelligent sort, and the objections you state would be reasonable if your assumption were true. I encourage you to look carefully at the realclimate site and find out for yourself that the testing you suggest was (and still is) a large part of developing the models. If you have some heavy duty computing power (or a lot of time) you can watch hurricanes form in the same areas as they do in real life, nobody tells the computer to create hurricanes they simply form due to the physics of the model and the initial data.

Perhaps there are mechanisms which aren't well understood! Perhaps there are mechanisms which haven't been discovered?!

No "perhaps" about it, you are correct on both counts, anyone who claims to know everything is at best only fooling themselves. However, the imperfect models we are talking about are not based on any "climate religion", they represent the best "educated guess" humanity can muster, they have acurately predicted many events on a regional basis and are regularly used to predict the paths of cyclones. It is foolish in the extreme to base public policy on "climate religion" regardless of wich way the "religion" leans, unfortunately anti-AGW religion has been the political status-quo for the last two decades.

Re:Doesn't that tell you *Anything*?

[TapeCutter]

Opps, forgot this bit...

The "hockey stick" is revealed truth because "state of the art" computer models...

Two minor points here, first the "hockey stick" was published in the early eighties, observed tempratures have closely followed the predicted trend for over 25yrs now. The authority of the graph comes from it's emprically proven track record in predicting average global tempratures. The graph has also been independently reproduced many times using differnt data sets and different techniques, computer models are just one more technique used for confirmation of the original analysis.

The other point about the IPCC is that it most definitely is not based soley on "computer models", you need to do more than skim the executive summary if you want to make any genuine critisims. Oh, and "indisputable" in scientific terms means there are no scientific objections to the methods used, anyone can say "I object" but for scientists to take notice you need to back it up with more than mere assertions.

And here I thought Oceanic Acidity was a biggie

[WillAffleckUW]

Given that the seas would be too acidic by 2050, causing the destruction of coral and shells worldwide.

Re:H2O is #1, CO2 is #2, CH4 is #3. Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

"So maybe you could then find me a single proper paper appearing in a real peer reviewed scientific journal in the last decade that says CO2" is "to blame for global warming."

It seems that you feel that this should be simple.

"...you could at least provide a link to your nonsense you're trying to pass as fact."

Re:Doesn't that tell you *Anything*?

[MacDork]

However, the imperfect models we are talking about are not based on any "climate religion", they represent the best "educated guess" humanity can muster, they have acurately predicted many events on a regional basis and are regularly used to predict the paths of cyclones.

So you concede the models are wrong. Thank you.

Re:The Bullet In the Coffin: Accurate Stat Stateme

[PoconoPCDoctor]

"Al, look in the mirror man. First, we (humans) aren't causing global warming. Second, if anyone is causing global warming, it's fat-asses who bitch about "lock-boxes" and how awful our world is.."

Do we have a Republican on our hands here? AHA! If you trust Geraldo "Faux News" Rivera more than Al Gore, I feel sorry for you.

I guess flag-waving Faux News fans haven't had much to cheer about lately, so go ahead, if you feel better after knocking the inventor of the Internet, do it. In the spirit of the season, I will intercede for you to spare you the wrath of the Gore.

Please Al Gore, Creator of all RFC's, forgive him, for he knows not that you can cut off his broad-band connection for blaspheming so..ummm... on second thought, cut away, dude, he's just clogging the tubes. Amen.

Beans

[Dabido]

Could be the methane has dropped as I've been eating less beans this year. :-)