Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

vinces99 writes: Off the U.S. West Coast, methane gas is trapped in frozen layers below the seafloor. New research from the University of Washington shows that water at intermediate depths is warming enough to cause these carbon deposits to melt, releasing methane into the sediments and surrounding water. Researchers found that water off the coast of Washington is gradually warming at a depth of 500 meters (about a third of a mile down), the same depth where methane transforms from a solid to a gas. The research suggests that ocean warming could be triggering the release of a powerful greenhouse gas (abstract).

Scientists believe global warming will release methane from gas hydrates worldwide, but most of the focus has been on the Arctic. The new paper estimates that, from 1970 to 2013, some 4 million metric tons of methane has been released from hydrate decomposition off Washington's coast. That's an amount each year equal to the methane from natural gas released in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout off the coast of Louisiana, and 500 times the rate at which methane is naturally released from the seafloor.

Comments

Almost as much methane as my college roommate

[Anonymous Coward]

used to release while guzzling sixpacks on every Sunday and watching football games on TV

"Expected" to release methane

[popo]

One must note that environmental science is best at observation, and typically poor at prognostication.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Anonymous Coward]

One must note that environmental science is best at observation, and typically poor at prognostication.

One must note that slashdotters are best at making unsubstantiated assertions, and typically poor at well argued comments.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Oligonicella]

Just altering the words of a phrase in no way negates the point of his statement.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Artifakt]

I'm incredibly lousy at making unsubstantiated assertions! Never made one, never will! There, have I defended my comments enough?

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Anonymous Coward]

in no way negates the point of his statement.

There is no point to his/her statement; it's just a (pretty random) assertion. There is no reasoned point, no subtantiation, no reference, not even an anecdote that attempts to convince as to why 'one must note' this. So, when it comes to prognostication are environmental scientists hacks? Evil? Lazy? Incompetent? All of the above? Tell us! Don't leave us hanging!

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Paradise Pete]

I'm incredibly lousy at making unsubstantiated assertions! Never made one, never will!

I see what you did there.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer a limerick.

There once was a statement from popo
It really sounded quite loco
The thing had no point
AC has him coined
As a hater of the treaty of Kyoto

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[St.Creed]

If I observe water temperature rising in a pot of water while I keep adding fuel to the fire, it doesn't take great prognostication skills to predict boiling water in the near future. So your observation is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[khallow]

Unless, of course, you don't know if you're adding enough fuel to bring the water to a boil under its current circumstances.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[gmuslera]

Is the sort of things that happens with very complex and interrelated systems. We make models, and sometimes don't know how many factors plays in or the importance of some of them. But impredictability is something that should scare you more than dismiss this as a potential danger. If a big possitive feedback mechanism is not yet discovered or understood for global warming (a bit like this big methane release, but maybe worse/faster/whatever) once global climate hit a critical point, things can go wrong very fast, very global, and in a very irrevocable way.

Re: "Expected" to release methane

[JoeRobe]

There's also a lot of unknowns about whether the CH4 even makes it to the surface. There's a lot of microbial activity between the sea floor and surface that loves to eat methane and release CO2:

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

http://link.springer.com/artic...

Tons of CO2 is a lot better in the atmosphere than tons of CH4.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[dywolf]

You say that like it means it might not.
If I park a car at the top of a hill and let off the parking brake...I expect it to roll downhill. Do you think it wouldnt?
If I toss a chunk of ice into a fire...I expect it to melt. Do you think it wouldnt?

Re: "Expected" to release methane

[Anonymous Coward]

One problem. What is the sign of biological life that is visable from other stars? What chemical compound would that be? Shit! I learned that in grade school. From another class, different subject matter, why are there previously occupied areas in what was a swamp between england and France, what caused the ice ages, and name some reasons the ice ages ended? Nothing hard, but with the proper capiture mechanism, more clean fuels? And if the "governors" of the world need to visit chile, why did they fly? Spreading all that pollution? CO2 and waste that energy, oh! Only the bosses are supposed to? How do I become a boss? Born to it.oh,my, even you are a slave to them, how pitiful.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why you fail.
if you notice the temperature increasing in response to adding fuel... ...and you keep adding fuel...
knowing isnt relevant.

the two givens are:
-temp is rising in response to input
-inputs are continuing

the two givens are sufficient to say it WILL boil.
as long as you keep adding fuel you will get there.
you will reach the point where it boils.
the only way not to is to stop.

the only unknown is when, but prediction doesnt carry a "when", only a statement that it will occur.

Re: "Expected" to release methane

[mellon]

About seven times better. Which is great if you don't have a warming problem; not so great if you do. Also, excessive CO2 production in the ocean leads to acidification, which leads to dead zones. And you really, really don't want dead zones.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[ultranova]

There is no reasoned point, no subtantiation, no reference, not even an anecdote that attempts to convince as to why 'one must note' this.

Why? Well, how else can one excuse ignoring this warning? Play for time until climate change goes beyond the point of no return, and then say it's too late to do anything. Status quo is god to a lot of people outside of fiction, too.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[NeutronCowboy]

The Methane Clathrate gun is a pretty well known and understood situation. Methane Clathrates exist, the temperature at which they're released is understood, and the impact of all that methane on the atmosphere is also well understood. The only question that's still open is when exactly ocean temperatures will reach the range in which the gun will be triggered. Just hope you aren't around for it.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[dywolf]

one must note that all science is observation.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[orgelspieler]

the only unknown is when, but prediction doesnt carry a "when", only a statement that it will occur.

Herein lies the crux of the problem. If the when is "during my lifetime," then I might give a shit. Otherwise, I'll crank the A/C all the way down to 60, then drive my H2 to watch a NASCAR race. Hell, I might even burn a few science textbooks while I'm there; I hear it's a fun way to release some extra carbon.

Re: "Expected" to release methane

[JoeRobe]

Closer to 35 times better (on a 100 yr horizon):

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

Agreed, CO2 and CH4 going into the atmosphere are both bad. CO2 just isn't quite so bad.

Good point regarding acidity. Now I need to do the calculation of pH increase as a function of X megatons of CO2 evolution in the ocean.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[KeensMustard]

That climate science, to date, has been poor at prognostication is indisputably true.

Actually the point of this discussion is that the statement One must note that environmental science is best at observation, and typically poor at prognostication. is in fact unsubstantiated. Simply repeating that assertion multiple times does not substantiate it.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[khayman80]

That climate science, to date, has been poor at prognostication is indisputably true. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Nonsense. Here's a list of 17 correct prognostications and their confirmations, including full citations.

Re: "Expected" to release methane

[rochrist]

Get back on your meds and take off your tinfoil hat.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[rahvin112]

The aerobic bacteria that can eat methane are literally everywhere. The only reason they can't eat the caltrates is they are frozen in water. It doesn't take an extremophile bacteria (which live on the volcanic vents you mention) to eat methane, there are hundreds of species living all over the surface in the oceans that will eat any methane they encounter. It's the primary reason methane only lasts about 30 years in the atmosphere.

Oh and BTW, your use of theory is the layman version, NOT the science version. All scientific theories have proof.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[khallow]

if you notice the temperature increasing in response to adding fuel... ...and you keep adding fuel...

This sort of observation is important only if preventing temperature increase is your only goal. That simply is not true for the human race.

And once again, you still have to demonstrate that we are close to a so-called "boil" in order for your concerns to matter.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[khallow]

There's still the matter of whether it occurs during anyone's lifetime. Pretending such things are inevitable doesn't make them so.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[leslie.satenstein]

One must note that environmental science is best at observation, and typically poor at prognostication.

One must note that slashdotters are best at making unsubstantiated assertions, and typically poor at well argued comments.

Why are we worrying about this problem. We opened the chute for global warming, and as the energy gains speed downhill, there is no way to put on the brakes. So, enjoy what we have destroyed. No not expect that your great grandchildren may even be alive when they reach maturity.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Gripp]

You should note that isn't a theory. At some point the ocean *will* be warm enough to cause this to happen. It's been a well studying and established *fact* for a number of decades now. Further, you should note that the debate is no longer about whether we're heading in that direction, but about whether it's the fault of humans.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Ol Olsoc]

One must note that environmental science is best at observation, and typically poor at prognostication.

One must note that slashdotters are best at making unsubstantiated assertions, and typically poor at well argued comments.

What's all the hoohaw about global warming? I looked outside this morning, and it was kinda cold. So much for global warming.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Ol Olsoc]

Well, how else can one excuse ignoring this warning? Play for time until climate change goes beyond the point of no return, and then say it's too late to do anything.

You missed the last part. Blame it on liberals. Use a really awesome rationale, like "We had to spend so much money denying that AGW exists, that we don't have any money to do anything about it now."

Thanks, O'bama.

Re:"Expected" to release methane

[Ol Olsoc]

That climate science, to date, has been poor at prognostication is indisputably true. Stating it in a discussion like this has a purpose: to point that fact out to those who were not already aware of it.

Nothing in the world is ever proven true until after it happens. I've never been shot, so I can deny that it hurts. We can make fair guesses though.

What I would like, and what I would need, and what has never been supplied. is a scientific reason why the fact that the so called Greenhouse gases effect of retaining heat fails when applied to the atmosphere? On earth. That the observed heat of Venus is due to something else than it's atmospheric heat retention.

Until I get something other than creationist-like political refutations of cherry picking data to find a mistake, and that invalidates the entire idea, or the ever popular character assassination, I'll expect that an easily provable concept is likely to scale.

Do you have any? Or just the standard politically based talking points, interspersed with long since discredited research?

Re: "Expected" to release methane

[khayman80]

The problem with this is that climate changes, whether or not humanity is involved. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.

I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.

I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.

I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.

I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.

The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?

One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.

But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.

You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]

I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbe

How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

I've stayed clear of the whole climate change (or whatever you want to call it) debacle for the last decade, since it has become so politicized.

I don't have enough field knowledge to combat every ridiculous claim, coming from either side.

From what I understand, there is little doubt climate change is happening, the questions is to what extent the impact of humans may be responsible.

Is there any solid evidence for this? How reliable are the models? How can we have a reliable answer when we haven't been recording data for long enough?

I would appreciate a simplified answer with good citations. If the IPCC report is not sufficient or is incorrect, why?

Re:How about a straight answer?

[tanveer1979]

The Cosmos season one Episode 13 explains it quite a bit. And earth is getting warmer since the industrial revolution in the absence of other factors. Most of the debate comes from industries who stand to loose from climate based taxes.

Think of it as the lead debacle.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[taiwanjohn]

Methane release also played a key role in the Permian Mass Extinction Event.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[twistedcubic]

I don't have enough field knowledge to combat every ridiculous claim, coming from either side.

I'd be interested in hearing an example of a "ridiculous" claim from the side which thinks global warming is real.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the cigarette smoke/cancer debacle.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Your.Master]

Seriously? You seriously believe that?

If there is no opposition, then let's do it already. Sounds like everybody is for it.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Beck_Neard]

Actually the question isn't to what extent humans are responsible. We know that humans are mostly, if not entirely, responsible. This is not controversial. It's also not controversial that over the next century the planet is going to warm by at least a few degrees, regardless of any actions we take (the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has already 'locked in' a certain amount of warming). In all likelihood, this is going to continue for at least a millenium, again regardless of what we do now. This is unless we figure out a magic way to recapture all the CO2 in the atmosphere faster than nature can absorb it, which is so incredibly hard that you wouldn't be very incorrect in saying that the laws of physics themselves forbid it (removing CO2 from the atmosphere represents a massive decrease in entropy; this needs to be balanced by a proportionately large increase in entropy elsewhere, and this means - ironically - more heat).

The only thing that's controversial right now is what effect global warming will have on ecosystems and human civilization. This is at least a factor we can control, and it's possible it won't be as bad as the alarmists say. Humans are clever and we can overcome the challenges. But we at least need to start doing something and stop pretending that it's a 'controversy'.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[MightyMartian]

And a few paid shills like Frank Spencer. Not that he has ever actually published these apparently devastating critiques of AGW in any peer reviewed journal.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

How about that Humans are 100% solely responsible? That's one example...

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

That sounds interesting. Although it will likely only add to my confusion.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

Actually the question isn't to what extent humans are responsible. We know that humans are mostly, if not entirely, responsible. This is not controversial.

It is controversial though, as it is contested a lot. How do we know that humans are mostly, if not entirely, responsible?

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Dorianny]

It is called geoengineering, no need for magic. Of course there is many people that would rather hope for magical pixie dust than to have human engineered solutions to the problem.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Beck_Neard]

Geoengineering won't solve the problem, it will just replace the problem with another problem. That said, it's possible that the new problem will be easier to deal with than the problem of CO2. In that case I'm all for it, but we need to first figure out more about the effects of climate change before we make any hasty decisions.

Sadly a lot of groups are going to see geoengineering as a way to further their own agendas, so it's possible that that solution too will become corrupted.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Beck_Neard]

It's not 'contested a lot'. The only people who 'contest' it are US republicans.

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

FTA: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Billly Gates]

You are asking a group of people who believe the world is no more than 5,000 years old and there is no evidence (in their eyes a serious intellectual way) that humans evolved from primates for a straight answer why they do not believe? Especially since those that due are liberal which are obviously wrong all the time in their opinion just look at obamacare etc so there is zero credibility.

It is an embarrassment such a solid group even exists in my country! I just can not fathom this in the 21st century people who are afraid of change but they exist and are very gullible. The same political party also supports big business and oil and the other half who votes believe whatever they hear on Fox, Rush, and their church pastor who also gets his information from the same sources who are funded by the energy industry. In other words they perfect combo.

My point of this post is not to go offtopic but to point out it is political. Not scientific. You can't argue with gullable people who think facts are not fact. Only gut feelings.

FYI I am not bashing libertarians who may want to mod me down. I am bashing those in the same wing politically who are social conservatives.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

Yes, the IPCC conclusion and report is what is contested.

If you think contesting it is stupid that is one thing, but to deny it is being contested...

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

Yeah...just trying to understand everything better without having to take an entire climate change course.

I mean, I pretty much accept the IPCC report because on subjects I am ignorant on, I will lean towards the scientific consensus.

Doesn't mean I don't want to know more....

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Beck_Neard]

Again, that doesn't really count as being contested. By that logic, it's also a subject of controversy as to whether the dog did indeed eat little Johnny's homework. Also, it's contested whether the sky is indeed blue - a colorblind person sees it as gray.

It doesn't count as contest if the people contesting it are ignorant and/or are doing it for political purposes.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[bledri]

Most of the debate comes from industries who stand to loose from climate based taxes.

Or from the various powerful special interests that stand to gain from climate-based spending and taxes.

Here's the list of largest companies by revenue. And that's excluding state owned companies, like Saudi Aramco. I'm not seeing a lot of powerful special interest groups that stand to make money from climate-based spending and taxes in that list . But I sure see a lot who would like to keep the status quo.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[riverat1]

Pretty much every prediction they've made to date have been proven wrong ...

Maybe it has more to do with your lack of understanding of what real scientists are actually predicting and the time scale of those predictions than any bad predictions by the scientists. Also maybe your judgement of "wrong" is not scientifically justified when you take into account the uncertainty attached to the predictions. Finally if you are getting the supposed predictions from bloggers rather than directly from the scientific literature they are often expressed out of context and in a hyperbolic manner just for the effect of getting lazy people who don't take the time to dig deeper to believe they are wrong

Re:How about a straight answer?

[gl4ss]

well, if they're not claiming catastrophic climate change being imminent any day now then they're just meteorologists. and meteorologists are staying out of it.

so the scientists that are climate scientists - and only climate scientists at that - have a bias that it's going to happen "soon" and is going to be huge. the hockey stick model. and every year they find more and more of things that will might cause it to be more severe and more severe.

just makes it kind of hard to have a real opinion. except that whatever my native country does has shit all nothing effect globally. and the chinese would be better off stopping with the coal for their own benefit.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Beck_Neard]

I'd never seen that list before. It's pretty illuminating. Thanks!

Re:How about a straight answer?

[riverat1]

When you add up all of the natural factors that affect temperatures it's clear that we should be in a slight cooling trend right now but the warming continues. That alone implies that human contributions are responsible for all of the warming lately.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

As long as someone else is *paying*. That is where most of the argument really goes. Whos fault hence whos paying.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[riverat1]

Here is a graph from the IPCC AR5 that summarizes the different sources of radiative forcing since 1880. It's from Chapter 8 of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Crashmarik]

Where I live would be under water after being scoured away by hurricanes. If the doomsday people had of been right in their predictions from the 80s.

I also see you and Spy Handler were smacked because you don't accept the doomsday religion.
  That pretty much sums it up. GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE "STFU"

Re:How about a straight answer?

[jandersen]

I don't think you are going to get a simple, straight answer from anybody. One side, the scientists, are scientists and therefore always qualify their statements, for the simple reason that they want to give correct answers to some very complex questions, and the other side is not interested in the truth or correctness of what they say, they just want to make it impossible for the lay person to understand things enough to realise that we need to take action.

Try to step a little bit back from what you read in the papers and hear on TV and look at how the two sides present things.

The scientists present their data, they present their methods, and they tell you why they reached their conclusions. They also tell you which things they are not sure of and they quantify the uncertainty of their results, which is why you never hear simply that humans caused this, but instead hear that it is '95% certain' or something like that. The reason for doing it this way is that it then allows others to check the validity of your data, methods and conclusions - in principle everybody can do this, but of course, most people won't be able to; but as a layperson, you can still observe this process, and you can get an idea about the validity of the science simply from whether there is are other scientists that refute or support it. Another thing that tends to indicate sound science is that scientists don't keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over - they move on, they admit their mistakes, they correct their methods etc - which is why you hear that actually the historical data were wrong in such and such ways, or the models didn't take this or that into account.

The climate-deniers, on the other hand, keep bringing up claims that have already been adequately refuted, as if they either don't understand or simply don't care; after a while, as a scientist, one gets utterly weary of having to address the same falsehoods and simply start ignoring them - after all, reality goes on regardless of what anybody says.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[St.Creed]

I take it as a good sign. The climate denialist faction must become pretty desperate if they have to resort to this type of argument.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[St.Creed]

Oh the poor, defenseless coal, gas and oil industry. Those poor companies, operating at thin margins with little resources, in far away countries that are nothing but desert, and god-forsaken tar sands. Yes, we must help those poor folk defend their livelihood from big business! Think of their children!

You're right, this is comedy gold :)

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dargaud]

Here's a different way to look at it: have you ever heard of the carboniferous period ? It's the 50 million years period between the time plants invented lignin and became trees (300MY ago) and the time when microorganisms evolved a way to digest it. During this period trees that died didn't rot. They just piled up. And other trees grew on top to hundreds of meters of depths. All that accumulated carbon is still around, in the ground, in form of coal of petroleum. But it took humans barely 200 years to release a good part of it into the atmosphere. Draw your own conclusion...

Re:How about a straight answer?

[St.Creed]

We know that humans are mostly responsible because:
- the isotope type of carbon in the atmosphere can be measured, and it matches the output you get when burning fossil fuels and not other origins
- the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that is measured matches the output you would expect by burning the fossil fuels we know are being used globally

Now the heating up of the atmosphere is not a simple relation to the fossil fuel CO2 output since there's all kinds of heat sinks that we didn't realize the Earth had, that can also suddenly turn into heat producers when certain limits are reached (see the article), and not all mechanisms are well understood or actually even charted.

So: we cannot safely say that humans are responsible for global warming with 100% certainty. We *can* say humans are responsible for pouring unprecedented rates of carbon into the atmosphere, at a rate where very basic science will predict that we get a greenhouse effect eventually. We cannot safely predict a timeframe for that however. But we do know that eventually, the chickens *will* come home to roost. And they're manmade chickens.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Kariles70]

You mean the state of Florida isn't under 17 feet of seawater like they said it would be by now?

Re:How about a straight answer?

[gtall]

You don't have to believe in climate change to realize dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is a problem. Just look at the acidifying oceans. Yes, it isn't methane (hence the difference in name and molecular structure). The implication of your statement is that since we have no good way of separating out the influence of man made climate change and natural climate change, we can forget about the controversy until the science resolves it. The science around the acidifying ocean is not in doubt except possibly by Sen. Sessions who never met a scientific fact he couldn't contradict.

You do recall the ocean, yes? Base the food chain? Screwing it up means you eventually go hungry.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[gtall]

It has had negligible effect on Conservative Republican thought processes, hence it doesn't exist.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[professionalfurryele]

The impact associated with the Chicxulub crater is associated with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, not the Permian–Triassic.

The impact sites associated with the Permian–Triassic extinction are ones like the Bedout structure, but no impact sufficient (on its own) to explain the kind of extinction we see is known. The Permian–Triassic is special because it was so severe and because of the extreme impact on marine life. This is why the methane hydrate gasification hypothesis enjoys comparatively wide support, although as you say most experts don't think it is enough on its own, possibly being a consequence of some other event (such as increased volcanism or an impact).

Re:How about a straight answer?

[angel'o'sphere]

So you are new to /. ?
Anti global warming propaganda dimished a bit last 2 years. Before that we had 20 years of US based anti AGW propaganda ...
I don't get your point.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[angel'o'sphere]

And what exactly is ridiculous about that?

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Stuarticus]

The correct solution to the whose who's problem is never "whos".

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Will.Woodhull]

From what I understand, there is little doubt climate change is happening, the questions is to what extent the impact of humans may be responsible.

That is not the question.

The question is, now that climate change has become inevitable, what should we do about it?

The answer varies considerably for different values of "we". However for most values of "we", it would make sense to do what can be done to reduce the greenhouse gases our human activities produce. For while this might not make a difference, it might make a big difference since everything suggests that that the climate's near future is characterized by one or more tipping points, and even a minor reduction in the rate of greenhouse gas production could be enough to keep from tumbling over a cliff.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Will.Woodhull]

If YOU had read the studies, you would know that the risk of lung cancer was a major talking point only for the anti-smoking marketeers, who felt that the very high risks of smoking induced heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were not scary enough to cause addicts to give up their habit.

To continue smoking or to give it up is the one decision that will have the greatest impact on a person's health twenty years and more down the road. Whether this is from the nicotine addiction or from all the other crud in inhaled tobacco smoke is an unknown.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

The fact it even is politicized is stupid.
Science is science and facts are facts.
They dont care about a person's politics.
the only place where climate change or human responsiblity is even a "debate" is in the political realm.

In the real world and among climate* scientists it's not a debate.
yes there is solid evidence.
yes the models are accurate.
yes we have sufficient data to show it.
CO2 levels are at their high point in nearly a million years (humans have only been around for 2 MY).
Sea levels have risen 8 inches just in the past 100 years.
Arctic ice pack is at the lowest levels ever recorded, and is only about 25% of what it was 40 years ago (ie, its lost 75% of its mass). The fabled Northwest Passage is actually coming into existence (and shipping companies are excited for that).
The amount of Antarctic ice mass lost every year is equivalent to a block of ice the size of Manhattan...and 3.5 miles thick. (No East the gains on East Antarctica do not offset the losses in West Antarctica; West is losing mass far faster; local climate is picking up some of the moisture, and that becomes precipitation in East, but its not where near the enough to offset the losses from West...its barely enough to offset the melting occuring in East Antarctica as it is).
So much Antacrtic ice is melting that its changing the salinty of the local ocean water, decreasing it, which is causing a increase in the amount of SEA ice (due to the fresher water being able to freeze at a higher temperature). Note that this increase in sea ice is very small, much smaller than the lost land ice.
The rate of increase of CO2 is over 333,000x faster than the historical rates before humans. We managed to accomplish in 200 years what it took nature millions of years to accomplish.
The natural carbon cycle is largely carbon neutral. While nature may have some ability to absorb some of our excess carbon, we cause an imbalance because we dump over 40 billion tons of CO2 into the air -every year-, far more than nature can absorb. For comparison, volcanoes only emit 0.3 billion tons of CO2 (so not, its not volcanoes).

(no, we dont care what tv weathermen, or physicists, or brain surgeons have to say about it)

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

again: you dont actually understand how carbon credits work. The people who make money of carben trading are the companies that trade the credits amongst themselves. its effectively a secondary stock market.

and again: your position is that cleaner air and a cleaner planet and healthier people is somehow a bad thing.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

this is why youre a troll and your original comment is nothing but a thinly disguised "im not a scientist...but i dont believe the scientists"

Re:How about a straight answer?

[fnj]

Excuse me, but you can't wave away controversy by asserting that there is no controversy. That is intellectual dishonesty. Believers (NOT accusing you personally) also engage in tainted discussion every time they invoke the mantra of "denial" and "denier". It's a loaded word, and is INTENDED to serve as a loaded word, and is taken from a playbook. The appropriate word is "unbeliever" or "nonbeliever" or "disbeliever". If that degree of honest discussion ever becomes prevalent on the side of the believers, and they show other signs of willingness to engage in mature discussion, then nonbelievers can cease using terms such as "cult", including much less complimentary terms than that.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

No actual science went into the creation of the NIPCC.
No actual peer review by actual scientists went into the NIPCC.

What did go into it was substantial sums of money from fossil fuel companies.
The NIPCC is not a scientific document, but a peice of political ideologically driven garbage meant to defend the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.climatesciencewatch...

Using the NIPCC as your "proof" that scientists are wrong is like trying to convince a scientist to believe in God using the Bible.
Its so dumb it's not even ignorant.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

http://valuesaustralia.com/blo...

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

Seriously, if climate change really does affecting trillions of dollars in Big Oil revenue, then where's the vast tsunami of propaganda against climate change?

says one of the local fonts of said propoganda.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[pipingguy]

Anything to further the goals comrade.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

youre confusing the Permian extinction with the Cretaceous extinction.

The Permian extinction gave rise to the dinosaurs.
The Cretaceous extinction killed the dinosaurs.

You also seem to be confused about the mechanics of mechanics of both extinction events.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

he's deflecting.
he is one of the local faces of that propoganda.
khallow is a paid shill.
and if he's not being paid...well then he's even dumber than i thought.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[pipingguy]

Notice how your post and the parent post are modded 'Troll', even though they are reasonable? That's the mentality we're dealing with here. I expect mine will also be modded down.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[rossdee]

"The Cosmos season one Episode 13 explains it quite a bit."

Hs there been more than one season of the (Neil Degrasse Tyson) Cosmos?

Or are you refering to the original (Sagan) series.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Gilgaron]

I suppose our non-biodegradeable plastics fall along similar lines, not that they are actually an effective carbon sink. Heaps of stuff that can't rot. If nothing else I suppose that geology will eventually recycle them back into oil.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

Bullshit. I do believe the scientists. I'm not doubting AGW, nor that humans are likely, majorly responsible.

If I'm playing devils advocate, it's because this is such a political issue and I would like to be able to understand why the claims the other side makes is wrong.

Parent asked for an example of a ridiculous claim made from the pro-AGW side, I provided one. That indicates nothing about my stance, genius.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

A significant number of scientists contest the IPCC report, hence it is contested.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Curunir_wolf]

Are you seriously trying to argue that energy companies would SUPPORT a tax on carbon?

In fact, they do:

"By trading on carbon credits, we'll be able to achieve significantly more cuts at a lower cost," said Anthony J. Alexander, president and chief executive of FirstEnergy, electric utility that serves several states, according to the Times. "The broader the options, the better off we're going to be."

John McManus, vice president of environmental services at American Electric Power, told the Times he agreed cap-and-trade programs can keep costs down.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Jacobs said Thursday his stated support of a proposed federal policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was expressed not as an individual opinion but in his role in leading an energy conglomerate. Jacobs was an executive with Reliant Energy in 2007 when supporting the so-called cap and trade legislation, which passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.

Today, at the Duke Energy annual shareholder meeting in Charlotte, policy experts from the National Center for Public Policy Research challenged CEO Jim Rogers over his company's lobbying for President Obama's energy policy, which seeks to make electricity prices skyrocket.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

We will now have world peace since you sorted that out.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

this is the pragmatic approach, but note that most conservatives dont even do this.
they deny that there is even a problem, that it is even occuring.

be like if the dinosaur scientists pointed their telescopes at the sky and said "there's a big rock comin!", and the other dinosaurs said "no there isnt" and then made it a political stance that the science is wrong.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

Everything you jsut said is factually wrong.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

and too lazy to spend the hundreds of hours it would take for me to properly educate myself on all the issues.

This is the only thing you got right.
Yes, you're too lazy to actually know what youre talking about.
That's why you're spouting misinformatoin and BS rather than actual facts.

"Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate"
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

"City sensors account for very few of the data sources and even when city sensors are omitted the trend is apparent."
"Multiple sources of data all show the same thing."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of stations being located at airports/cities."
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

that fact that you dont even compherend that "climategate" was a completely fabricated scandal shows how ill informed you are.
you also are apparently ignorant of how scientfic funding works.

you're also wrong about how science works. climate science is a real phsyical science, unlike economics which is a behavorial science. physical science does not lend itself to different conclusions as the methods of science itself quickly weed out conclusions that arent supported by evidence. This is very different from economics in which the unpredictability of the human animal is a tremendous factor. in a phsyical science the same inputs cause the same outputs. In a behavioral science like economics there is no such garuntee.

you are in short, an ill informed idiot.

http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

Again: Incorrect.
Solar activity has no correleation whatsoever.
We are currently in a period of LOWER solar activity.
If solar activity were teh culprit we should expect to see lower temperatures.
We do not.

Let me state it again clearly for you just so you do not misunderstand:
For the last 35 years solar activity and global temperature have been going in opposite directions.

Read http://www.skepticalscience.co...
It even includes a handy graph which shows both solar activity and global temperatures over the same time period, so that any idiot, including you, can grasp that is no connection between the current warming trend and solar activity.

And again: Climategate was a completely manufactured scandal. IE, hoax.
Some people hacked a server, and then read statements out of context without any actual idea what they were reading.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

It depends on the reason why.

It's not scientists contesting it for scientific reasons and because they are qualified to do so (no one cares what a brain surgeon thinks of climate science, just like no one cares about climate scientist's opinion on how best to remove a brain tumor).

Its politicians, mostly from the GOP but some Dems, contesting it for political reasons, all while saying "I'm not a scientist".

Reasons matter, and contesting something for sake of contesting it, is stupid.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

This is also the part deniers ignore when they say "But millions of years ago there was much more CO2 in the air."
Sometimes they even include an acknowedgement of the also much higher Oxygen levels, levels that have trended downward to present day concentrations.

But they fail to point out the "why", and present it as a great mystery, when in reality we have a pretty good grasp of it.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Beck_Neard]

No they don't.

Not climate scientists, anyway.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Beck_Neard]

But there really isn't any controversy, no matter how many times you or other people say it or want to believe that it exists.

In this context, controversy would mean a scientific controversy over the main aspects of climate change: that it is happening and it's due to human activities. There is no scientific controversy around this.

Science is full of controversies. You can go to the 'letters' section of any reputable journal and see how much scientists argue over things. But climate change just isn't one of these issues. There might be argument over small details or specifics, but nobody familiar with the science disputes that humans are causing the climate to change.

If you go outside the USA (and a few other anglosphere countries), climate change is pretty much accepted across the political spectrum. But in the USA you have this huge party that's made it it's job to spread FUD, which is exactly what we're seeing here in this thread. It's manufactured controversy. And it works.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to insult people when you can't even be bothered to do a basic grammar/spell check, you illiterate douchenozzle.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[metrix007]

And only true Scotsman wear kilts.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Beck_Neard]

What exactly are you trying to say? That there is a scientific controversy around the idea that humans are the major cause of climate change? Well, no, there's not. Now you can dig up random people saying random things and you can change the goalposts, but you can never prove there's a controversy when there isn't. Have a read here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

FTA: "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

97% of scientists rarely agree on anything.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[david_thornley]

How many doomsday people have been scientists? There's been a lot of idiots predicting imminent doom, and if you're just casually watching the media you may not be able to tell the difference.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[david_thornley]

Is it your opinion that we should have computer scientists be the judges of climate science, and research psychologists should tell us what computers can do? If I want to know about the climate, I want to know what the people who specifically study climate science say. Overwhelmingly, they say that AGW is happening, and it's going to have very serious results.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well he sometimes made some bright comments, but the last one was rather dumb.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Petfish]

I say ONLY because it goes from 2% to 4%. WOOO! A WHOLE 2% INCREASE..

Hang on, I haven't had a chance to check your sources yet.... Oh wait. Yes I have.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Petfish]

Piers Corbyn / weatheraction.com

John L. Casey / spaceandscience.net

2 more non-scientists whose newsletters I am looking forward to subscribing to.

Not really.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Petfish]

I love the way the denialists have shifted from "you can't prove it's happening" to "well you can't say we did it," and the Just Asking Questions guys are following along.

All part of the "Four Dog Defence". http://acronymrequired.com/201...

Re:How about a straight answer?

[khallow]

This is one of the several reasons why I don't take this stuff seriously. A silly ad hominem attack just because I persistently disagree? I have a better suggestion. How about evidence? Show me that this claim has a basis for which I should be concerned.

I'll note that for example, the research in question makes an unwarranted assumption about global warming-related heating at 500 meters. If the ocean doesn't heat anywhere near that much, then the concern is not warranted.

Another thing it indicates is that we may have vastly underestimated the natural release of methane from the ocean floors (and possibly as a consequence, the consumption of atmospheric methane from various means). Just because we're seeing sea bed methane releases now, when we look, doesn't mean that there weren't methane releases in the past when we didn't look.'

Re:How about a straight answer?

[khallow]

Anti global warming propaganda dimished a bit last 2 years. Before that we had 20 years of US based anti AGW propaganda ...

I would have put it exactly the opposite. Climategate (which started in 2009) really opened up the field to anti-GW propaganda. And the opportunities have only increased in the wake of the back peddling in the 2013-2014 releases of the Fifth Assessment Report issued by the IPCC.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Crashmarik]

Probably the place you need to buried.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dywolf]

Then next time you need surgery I suggest you go ask your local history professor to do the job.

Heck, that isnt even the right fallacy reference to make!
You dont want the No True Scotsman.
you want the Argument from Authority.

But lets rememeber: fallacy is only the potential for error, not a garuntee. think of it as a Caution Light.
In this case, why woul dyou care what a geologist, or physicist, or other non cliamte scientist thinks of cliamte theory?
Likewise, why would you care what a climate scientist thinks of relativity or geology?

Unless the individual is extremly well round and can back up his claims with a line of accepted research, if its not his field of expertise then his claims are worth no more than those froms ome random schmuck off the street.

Again: I say you are troll hiding behind a veneer of feigned ignorance.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[fatwilbur]

Oh the poor, defenseless coal, gas and oil industry. Those poor companies, operating at thin margins with little resources, in far away countries that are nothing but desert, and god-forsaken tar sands. Yes, we must help those poor folk defend their livelihood from big business! Think of their children!

I get your point, but you fail to acknowledge the biggest beneficiaries of the industry - the people. In places where things aren't extremely corrupt (Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the US...) and the money ends up concentrated in few hands, the people can't turn down what comes with it: many high paying jobs, well-funded social services, and low taxes. The comfort that comes from having energy and the wealth provided by it's sale, provide what the people want. And you would want it too, so I find the argument the entire industry is inherently evil... misguided.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[Crashmarik]

Sorry, in case you hadn't noticed it's the left that suffers from EDP.

Re:How about a straight answer?

[dave420]

Read the IPCC reports - they do just that.

Glad you asked

[Tenebrousedge]

questions is to what extent the impact of humans may be responsible.

No, this is fairly easily measurable; we're dwarfing natural processes. Aside from natural seasonal variation the biggest natural contributor to atmospheric CO2 is volcanic activity, and the rate at which we're releasing carbon is completely unprecedented. You can figure it as equivalent to 1-2 Yellowstone supervolcano eruptions every year, or two Pinatubos per day. (the article quotes from a paper that I belive is available online but I can't find it at the moment).

The models are well-defined on the lower limit due to the physics of radiation; 3.7 W/m^2 increase per doubling of CO2 is a straightforward result of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. That is equivalent to about 1 degree C global temp, and no one is worried about that. The issue is that water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas and you may have noticed that there's quite a bit of it lying around. Furthermore, air can hold exponentially more water vapor as it heats up. There's a lot of variation possible in the feedback loops but negative feedback is really unlikely.

Personally, I find the most useful way to approach the subject is to take a look at the history of climate science. Thousands of scientists did not wake up one day and accept the movement of the continents, neither did they accept that humans could have any affect on the climate without strong proofs. The Discovery of Global Warming goes over the history of global warming and has useful insights into what exactly a climate model is, and how even one-dimensional models can still tell us useful things even if their long-term predictions are not all that accurate

For a more detailed look into the science, you might check out Science of Doom, but a textbook on atmospheric physics may be more useful. Unfortunately, beyond the basics it starts to get complicated in a real hurry; unless you really want to start diving through papers and textbooks you will probably be best served by the IPCC report.

Re:Glad you asked

[metrix007]

I will be checking out the links you posted, and thank you for your answer.

However, if you could provide a short, succinct explanation as to how we know we are dwarfing natural processes, that would be great.

Where is the data coming from that we can assert that so confidently?

If the answer is in one of the links you posted I apologize, I won't be checking them out till the weekend.

Re:Glad you asked

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, pick up the IPCC or follow the Climate Change course at coursera. But one tl;dr is:

Carbon comes in various isotopes, mostly by action of the sun. So plants and us include an amount of C-14 because we interact with the atmosphere. Stuff like oil and gas contains no C-14 because it's been underground for millions of years.

By measurements we know that all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is only C-12, no C-14 at all. So whereever it's coming from it's been out of contact with the atmosphere for a very long time. It is also replacing the O2 levels in exactly the amount expected if you were burning stuff. And its the wrong proportion for volcanos. And it's not coming from the oceans either (they're absorbing, not releasing).

Now, that narrows it down a lot. Draw your own conclusion.

This page is actually a really good summary: http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

Re:Glad you asked

[Beck_Neard]

The amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere is easily measurable, and it matches with the observed increase in CO2 in air, water, and biomass. It's about 40 billion tons per year now: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/carb...

The amount of CO2 naturally emitted by volcanoes and forest fires and such is a bit harder to calculate but you can get reasonable order-of-magnitude estimates. Volcanoes, for instance, emit about 0.3 billion tons per year. There are lots of sources on the US geological survey page: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/haza...

No matter how you slice it, even the most outlandish estimates for CO2 from natural sources fall 1-2 orders of magnitude short of the amount of CO2 necessary to explain the global increase.

There are natural CO2 absorbing sources but the additional amount they absorb each year is tiny.

Re:Glad you asked

[metrix007]

Fantastic, thank you!

Re:Glad you asked

[dywolf]

Natural carbon processes are neutral.

By far the the biggest aberrations in the natural world are volcanoes.
Volcanic activity varies year to year, but volcanoes emit 0.3 billion (or 300 million) tons of CO2 per year on average.

In comparison human activity releases in excess of 40 billion tons of CO2. Every year.
And its only increasing.

Imagine a cube 18 miles on a side (more than 95000 feet tall). Made of CO2.

That's what 40 billion tons of CO2 looks like.
That's what we put into the atmospehere every year.

While in terms of total atmosphere volume it may not seem like much.
Imagine a swimming pool filled with pure water.
And you add a drop of ink.
And another drop.
And another drop.
And another drop.
And another drop.
At first you wont see anything.
but eventually you start to get an effect.
Eventually its not so crystal clear.
Eventually the effect gets to be measurable.

That's the effect our CO2 (and methane, other greenhouse emissions) is having the planet and its temperature.

Re:Glad you asked

[Petfish]

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't enough to raise the temperature a measurable amount, see the last 18 years for proof of that.

Spare us. Please. http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Free energy!

[fustakrakich]

Instead of complaining, tell the damn people with the money to learn how to harvest the stuff.

Re:Free energy!

[phantomfive]

Instead of complaining, tell the damn people with the money to learn how to harvest the stuff.

Tell me how to harvest it please, and I will become one of the people with money.

Re:Free energy!

[WillAffleckUW]

part of the problem with fracking and pipelines for natural gas is they've increased methane releases a LOT.

the methane we're talking about is far more than that.

Re:Free energy!

[fustakrakich]

Oh, believe me, I know it's massive compared to our piddly little leaks.. but the people who are actually concerned need to come up with a way to collect it, and try to make a make a small profit on the side. It's this, or the whole planet is going to smell like one big fart. As long as the breweries don't shut down, there's nothing to worry about.

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[MightyMartian]

Back in the real world, we call people who cherry pick time ranges to get the answer they want liars.

Deal with the science, and quit repeating the lies of others. They are dishonest, you are merely a fucking retard.

Re:Nothing we can do about it

[roc97007]

Long live the sun god!

He sure is a fun god!

Ra! Ra! Ra!

Another energy source

[unixisc]

I was gonna suggest this as well. With all the worries about energy sources, why not find out a way to procure it from the sea, and then provide it to energy consumers. Global dependence on oil reduces, and alongside it, one of the causes of global warming get eliminated - both due to less oil being used, and due to the methane being used for energy rather than simply get released into the atmosphere. Same argument about the flatulence of cattle

Re:Another energy source

[Billly Gates]

The oil industry wants you to burn petrochemicals instead. It is more profitable and less of it than Methane.

Re:Another energy source

[Kariles70]

Thats right! They're also the same people that froze all of the Great Lakes last winter! And it looks like they'll do it again this year! Damn them!!!

Re:Another energy source

[gtall]

That's not entirely true, Japan has a program now to attempt to harvest methane. If they find a way to do it cheaply enough, poorer nations will be use using it. However, burning it still results in extra carbon in the atmosphere, although admittedly a less dangerous form. Some of the big oil companies also have small projects to see if it viable.

Re:Another energy source

[fnj]

Less dangerous form? Really? CO2 is CO2. If what you mean is really that there is a lower QUANTITY of CO2 released by producing one joule of electric or mechanical energy by burning CH4 than by burning oil or coal, just say so.

Also, I find it annoying when people refer to "carbon" in the atmosphere when they really mean CO2. Does anyone say there is a lot of hydrogen in the atmosphere because of the water vapor? Compounds behave chemically completely differently from their elemental constituents.

And the title of the nature channel special

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

will be When the oceans fart.

CO2 Emissions Estimates

[Tenebrousedge]

Here is the paper I mentioned, and here is the USGS's take on the matter. From what I understand there are a number of ways to estimate human CO2 output, one being to add up all the fossil fuels that are being consumed globally, which is likely not terribly accurate but we're still talking about two or three orders of magnitude difference. Another estimation method uses carbon isotope ratios. I get the impression that estimating volcanic emissions is somewhat difficult, but there's a fair amount of continuous monitoring for various reasons. Terrence Gerlach, a vulcanologist with the USGS, seems to have done quite a bit of research into the subject. The nice thing about scholarly publications is that they have to tell you where the numbers come from; if one wants to find out more about either part of the estimates then you just follow the references.

In summation, parts of the estimates come from direct measurements and the other parts seem to be estimates based on fossil fuel consumption. I am sure that there's a whole world of study out there for estimating various factors.

As an aside, humans are still far from matching or exceeding the most violent outgassings that have resulted from the formation of Large Igneous Provinces. I believe the Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps released about 3 orders of magnitude more CO2 than humanity has liberated. While our current burn rate would have us match those outgassings in about a thousand years, I don't believe that our fossil fuel reserves are projected to last that long. However, Large Igneous Provinces generally took millions of years to form, not hundreds; there is every reason to believe that what we are doing to the planet is unprecedented. On the other other hand, we're mostly skipping the problems with particulate matter and sulfides that came along with volcanic eruptions. For what it's worth.

Science does not work like that

[tanveer1979]

Humans are 100% responsible is a claim which makes headlines.
But have you read actual research.

It says, there is enough evidence to prove that most of the warming can be linked to human activities.

Science looks at evidence, and then presents a hypothesis. This is how it has been in the scientific method. When an evidence is discounted science looks at new evidence.

Science is never always right. Scientists make mistakes. And that is why its science. For example, some hypothesis about climate change was proved wrong. Does it mean that entire climate change argument is wrong?
Scientists will update their models, gather more evidence and then present the findings again. Being wrong does not discredit science. It merely improves it.

The problem is, people view science as they have viewed faith. There is no room for error or mistakes. So any process which makes mistakes is ridiculed. IPCC has made mistakes, so have other climate scientists. Some evidence may not be relevant or nonferrous. But it does not matter. We just move on.

There are some things about climate we do not understand. That is also acceptable. Sure, faith based systems have all the answers, but that is not science. You first have to understand what is science, and once you do, you will figure it all out.

Do not fear science. Embibe it. Question. But not because somebody told you to, or some rich publication says so. Question on your own merit. If you do not believe something to be true, instead of ridiculing and pointing to some site on the internet which says its wrong, ask the question.

What site X says, is it true? If not, why? You will find answers to all of it if you start looking for it.

But if you let your faith cloud your judgement, you will never understand. If you want to understand, question. Now ridicule.

Re:Science does not work like that

[metrix007]

I understand how science works, thanks.

Can you link me to some conclusive research? Because I haven't found any. There seem to be just as many studies opposing that humans are responsible as there are studies implicating us.

Re:Science does not work like that

[bledri]

I understand how science works, thanks.

Can you link me to some conclusive research? Because I haven't found any. There seem to be just as many studies opposing that humans are responsible as there are studies implicating us.

Just as many? From Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Based on those percentages, of the approximately 3977 papers published that took a position on AGW, about 3893 supported AGW and around 84 rejected AGW. So the appearance that their are "just as many" opposing studies is an illusion.

Re:Science does not work like that

[Kariles70]

"We have in all likelihood seen our last snowfall. Snow will become a rare and exciting event. Children will grow up not knowing what snow looks like" Dr. David Viner of the Hadley Climate Research Center in the year 2000. Now I'm sure that some people might disagree with the accuracy of that statement (particularly if you live in Buffalo), but here its the thought that counts. Cause, consensus you see. We should not hurt their feelings by questioning the accuracy of their science. We'll just tell them it still snows, but its HOT snow. And the Great Lakes all froze solid last season and didn't melt completely until late June. That hasn't happened since 1912 but it will happen again this year just like last. Glaciers carved out the great lakes. We'll just tell them its all an illusion created by oil company lobbyists. But lets not upset them and their little hobby horse of AGW. Cause if they'll believe the globe is "hotter than its ever been before" even though they could walk outside and prove that it isn't, they'll keep believing it even if we went into a new ice age. We broke over 9700 cold records in the fall alone so telling them that will not dissuade them into being heretics of their newly invented religion.

Re:Science does not work like that

[FunkSoulBrother]

This will be surprising to you I'm sure, but it turns you actually *can't* walk outside in Buffalo, put a finger in the air, and say anything definitive about the weather in Tahiti or Dubai or Moscow or Los Angeles.

Pic related: http://i.imgur.com/lZ7C4nY.jpg

Re:Science does not work like that

[dywolf]

You do realize the buffalo snow was lake effect snow right?
as in, it wasnt precipitation formed high in the atmosphere in clouds and falling to earth, but rather was water than came from the lake nearby?

Re:Science does not work like that

[Jason Levine]

In addition, warmer temperatures can lead to more lake effect snow. Were the temperatures colder, the lake would freeze over which would mean less water evaporating from the lake to fuel lake effect snowstorms. With warmer weather, the lake stays unfrozen, more water evaporates, and more lake effect snow occurs.

Unfortunately, this increase in lake effect snow is often followed by more people saying "It just snowed in this one place on this one day thus Global Warming is wrong!"

Re:Science does not work like that

[bledri]

You neglect about 8000 papers of 12000 papers originally involved that were discarded by the authors of this study, because they lacked a pithy statement in the abstract as to whether they agreed or disagreed with the global warming consensus.

Papers that are not addressing AGW and take no position on AGW are irrelevant, no matter how many ad hominem labels you spew and assumptions you make. Many climate studies are purely refining and making observations (and contrary to the spin of propagandist, the vast majority find that the heat content of the Earth as a whole is increasing). As to a "pithy statement in the abstract," the whole point of a fucking abstract is to summarize the findings of the paper.

The ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC CONTENT of those 12000 papers played no role at all in this crappy piece of cargo cult science, it was all about whether people made certain statements in the abstract or not.

It's a simple analysis of the position taken in papers. And, again, the whole point of an abstract is to summarize methodologies and findings. The fact that it collides with your worldview is irrelevant. The fact that in your heart of hearts you believe in a massive effort by climates scientists to take part in a worldwide multi-national conspiracy to do what ever strange thing it is that you think they are doing is irrelevant.

Re:Science does not work like that

[Jack9]

> Papers that are not addressing AGW and take no position on AGW are irrelevant, no matter how many ad hominem labels you spew and assumptions you make.

That statement is incorrect. Such papers are specifically relevant. Scientific papers that do not take a position are not excluded as a factual record that serves as credible evidence. Irrelevancy would be based on insufficient rigor or correlation.

Re:Science does not work like that

[david_thornley]

How is a paper that does not address a claim relevant to the claim, let alone specifically relevant? Is it your position that we must consider computer science or English literature papers, since they generally don't address AGW either? How about Einstein's "anno mirabilus" papers? Since they don't address AGW, certainly they must be specifically relevant? I'm not following your reasoning.

Re:Science does not work like that

[david_thornley]

So, you find what appears to be a really stupid statement by somebody affiliated with a climate research center, and that proves AGW isn't happening?

Re:Science does not work like that

[tp1024]

If you had read the paper, instead some simply venting some bullshit about a paper you didn't read, you'd know that all papers were selected on the basis of keywords like global warming, so they ALL had to do with it.

we do not need fracking

[ihtoit]

Nature just fucking proved it.

Re:we do not need fracking

[St.Creed]

In Soviet Russia, Nature fracks *you*!

Re:we do not need fracking

[haapi]

Good point. 500M of ocean is a trivial distance for today's oil platforms. If processing methane as it exists below that depth/temp gradient could be made profitable -- no earthquakes in OK or polluted fresh water.

Peer reviewed

[tanveer1979]

Any study is valid if its peer reviewed. So first of all you need to apply this filter. You are not qualified to believe in a study. So people like you and me look for peer reviewed studies.

Secondly, you have to understand that a study is one study.
So if 20 sites quote Study X
and 2 sites quote study Y
It does not mean there are 2 studies Y and 20 studies X

Many times, these denier sites all quote one study, and in the cacophony confusion arises.

So whenever you find something, see if you can follow the breadcrumbs to the source paper.
Find if its peer reviewed.

Then store it.

Collect a few such papers. You will realize that the papers supporting human cause will vastly outnumber those opposing it.

Re:Peer reviewed

[Beck_Neard]

It's neither true that everyone is qualified to pass judgement about a scientific field, nor that everyone should just accept what scientists say blindly. The truth is in the middle: It would be great IF everyone could check for themselves, but in practice this just isn't possible, so at some level you do indeed need to trust the consensus of the literature. Of course you put in measures (like peer review and other measures) to make sure the scientists are being honest. Do transgressions happen? Obviously. We are all human. But it's really a stretch to say that all scientists across the world - from wildly differing backgrounds, with different beliefs and supported by different organizations - all came to the same wrong conclusion.

But the issue of global warming is just so simple that you don't even need to go that far. Public temperature records are available. There's all sorts of other public data available. It's really easy to look at the data yourself if you are so inclined.

Re:Peer reviewed

[cryptolemur]

Many times, these denier sites all quote one study, and in the cacophony confusion arises.

I would like to add that often these sites quote a study that does not say what the site claims it says, usuallly the contrary. So always check out the study, too. If you don't know the lingo, or can follow the science, there's usually some discussion to be found handling the misquoting of the paper.

As there very seldom is "conclusive" studies in anything -- and especially so in a cross-discipline field covering physics, astronomy and biology -- you'd be better off starting with Spencer Wearth's Discovery of Global Warming, me thinks.

Re:Peer reviewed

[metrix007]

Peer review doesn't automatically make a study valid. Please stop explaining science.

Re:Peer reviewed

[metrix007]

Public temperature records are available

For maybe 100 years going back, which is insufficient.

Re:Peer reviewed

[dywolf]

this is why i say you are a troll hiding beneath a veneer of "explain it to me", because evena cursory google search reveals tons of data and the sources of those data, including both direct measurements of trapped atmospehric gases from ancient rocks and ice cores, to the various proxies.

we dont just have 100 years of data, we have many hundreds of thousands. granted the resolution isnt as granular as the recent data (150 years of multiple daily local observations), expecially in proxies, but by its very nature it still provides an overall account of historical data and trends. so while we cant say "On the 5th of March 1304 it was 5F in Iceland" we can say something like "average temperatures indicated by the tree rings of preserved logs in timbuktu are around 5F". It helps that science of climate science isnt concerned with specific observations at specific times in specific locations, but rather with trends over long time periods on a global scale.

Re:Peer reviewed

[dywolf]

Then stop making stupid statements like the one you just made.

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

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

Peer review is science.
Study isnt really the right word, the word you want is research, but yes it does make it valid.

A study or research project is not a conclusion.
Rather it is simply the presentation of a set of observations.
Said observations are being presented to the wider community.

The phrase you want, what you should have said, is that "peer review does not automatically validate the conclusions of a study."

However, it absolutely DOES validate the observations made, in the sense that peer review is essentially saying "we reviewed your stated methods, data, and observations, and find no fault. We believe that you saw what you say you saw, and the observations are as you said. This research is fit for use/publication that we may study and debate it further."

Validating the conclusion drawn from that data is a different matter. Someone else may come up with a different conclusion. Through debate, verification, more research and observations, a body of work is built and a consensus gradually reached. Part of that process may even be the revealing of additional data that shows the initial data didnt show enough information to actually get an accurate picture, even though the methods and study itself survived peer review.

It is not a serial process in which Peer Review is end step before Scientific Consensus.
It is an iteritive process in which Peer Review is one of many steps that will be gone through many times before arriving at a Scientific Consensus.

Re:Peer reviewed

[metrix007]

LOL. Another armchair scientist trying to sound smart..

Your explanation of Peer Review is mostly correct, but your playing with semantics. I'm not sure why you felt the need to respond to me and attack to me when my post was in reply to a different poster.

Peer reviews does not automatically make a study valid, partly *because* it does not automatically validate the conclusions of a study.Also because peer review can be very, very flawed.

Of course, you know that and just wanted to sound smart, huh?

As you've said, it's simply one step. That's it.

Nice explanation though. I hope you felt it paid off.

Re:Peer reviewed

[metrix007]

I'm not a troll, you're just an idiot who jumps to conclusions.

As I said elsewhere in the thread, I align with science and use the findings of science to basically define my worldview. I don't have the time and I am out of my depth in trying to get a handle on this stuff.

I can repeat a point made showing why AGW is real, etc, but when someone has a counter-point I usually don't have a response because I don't know enough. I don't have time or any real desire to delve into all the research, so took advantage of this thread to hope for some simple explanations or references. And it paid off.

Even your pointless, needlessly insulting posts have nuggets of wisdom within. Thank you for providing that info, and fuck you for being a douche.

Cheers.

Re:Peer reviewed

[david_thornley]

Peer review, while very valuable doesn't validate the observations. It validates the alleged methods and data, but if somebody's just fudging data it isn't going to find that. There are other methods to deal with that, but they take longer.

Re:Peer reviewed

[Uberbah]

Here you go. An entire list of responses to climate denialists. Now you have a reference so you wont sound just like a paid-off concern trolling douche who needs to go fuck himself.

Re:Peer reviewed

[metrix007]

Fair enough. Thanks.

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[Crashmarik]

Oh my god. The quality of any model is much more dependent on the understanding of the system and the mathematics governing it, than it ever will be on the computational horsepower you throw at it. If anything the need for computational capacity indicates how lacking a model is. The most powerful models of the physical universe can all be run on pencil and paper.

From the OP...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...The warming water probably comes from the Sea of Okhotsk, between Russia and Japan, where surface water becomes very dense and then spreads east across the Pacific. The Sea of Okhotsk is known to have warmed over the past 50 years, and other studies have shown that the water takes a decade or two to cross the Pacific..."

So, nothing to do with CO2, global warming or fracking, then?

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[Bruinwar]

Back in the real world, all the computer models completely failed to predict the last twenty years or so of nothing much happening. Just as the models that predicted a new ice age in the 70s completely failed to predict twenty years of warming.

What models? Computer models from the 70s? Citation please. Or did you mean the pop science in the media? It was never a real theory, it was entertainment.

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[Crashmarik]

Woosh sailed over your head.

Save Our Backsides

[JimSadler]

Sadly if we abbreviate save our backsides we end up with SOB which just won't work well. Maybe a word that means the same that starts with an A would help. We'll call it the SOA association. In order to save our A we need to consider just what actions to take. One is to use our minds and the other is to sit back and quietly wait for science and technology to save our A. My humble, adled, mind suggests that using our brains is more reliable than waiting for tech to bail us out. Therefore the issue is simple. Pollution is a result of human activity. This includes heat as a pollutant. The more humans, the more pollution. That is very simple to grasp. Less babies means less pollution. Knowing that does very little unless we have enforced, birth control. We have reached a moment in time where many people should not be allowed to reproduce at all and those that are allowed should be limited to one child in one marriage for life. Doing this will reduce world population until we get to a level at which the consequences of human activity have very little effect upon the planet.

Re:Nothing we can do about it

[dywolf]

disproven so many times that the amount of ignorance required to believe it is no longer even funny.
If solar cycles were driving it, and they are not, then we should be cooling right now.
There is zero correleation between solar cycles and the warming trend.

Only CO2 matters

[ggpauly]

Because excess CO2 has a long duration in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gasses, other emitted greenhouse gasses have relatively little effect on global warming. Peak global warming will be because of peak atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio (concentration).

See eg "Fossil fuel's future", http://www.sciencemagazinedigi...

Counter-intuitive in the case of methane.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[mellon]

Methane oxidizes, yielding CO2. You don't even know basic chemistry, and you are making scientific-sounding statements about atmosphere science. Sigh. One of the big problems with society today: idiots are completely sure of themselves, and smart people communicate with equivocation in contexts where equivocation will be understood to correlate with uncertainty. See? I can't even stop myself!

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Curunir_wolf]

The 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document and database (which still remains the gold standard today and has not changed despite 39 years of greenhouse gas emissions) is an absolute goldmine of detailed information on the physical derivation of the standard atmospheric model and confirmatory observations, collected from satellite data that was not even available when Maxwell's equations were first derived. It provides overwhelming physical proof and overwhelming observational evidence that the Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C "greenhouse effect" is correct, and would necessarily falsify any significant "radiative forcing from greenhouse gases" affecting the lapse rates or various atmospheric temperature gradients, and thus as well negate the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Only one of these two competing greenhouse theories can account for the 33C greenhouse effect, since if both were true, the Earth would be an additional 33C warmer than present.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[dywolf]

Methane is more effective at heat trapping than CO2.
Methane also breaks down into CO2.
Methane matters.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Oligonicella]

Otherwise known as plant food.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Plumpaquatsch]

The 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document and database (which still remains the gold standard today and has not changed despite 39 years of greenhouse gas emissions)

Funny how you suddenly favour a model that at its basis declares a fixed temperature distribution throughout the atmosphere. According to it, it should be exactly the same temperature all day and all year around at any place on Earth's surface. At least according to your interpretation of it.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[dywolf]

Yes you are a crackpot.
No, you dont have any clue what you are talking about.

To dismiss radiative heating and isntead hold that it is solely from phsyics and "gravity/pressure" is to say the sun does not warm the earth. IE that the energy from the sun striking the earth is either ignored by the earth or 100% re-radiated. both of these are impossible and violate thermodynamics.

It also completely ignores the numerous experiments showing the ability of various gases (or other materials reall) to absorb radiated energy. All matrials can absorb radiated energy. Some re-radiate better than others, some retain it better than others.

Air is a mixture of various elemental gases and compounds.
Mostly nitrogen, then oxygen, and then others, including CO2.
Each of these will absorb some amount of radiated energy (which, contrary to your statement, is basic physics).
Changing the concentrations of these gases will result is different total performance of the mixture.
Therefore changing the concentration of CO2 in the mixture affects how much energy is retained by the mixture.
Because CO2 is one of those that retains it much better than others, a change in the concentration of CO2 has a disproportionate affect on the mxiture relative to its concentration.

In short: No. Th gravity/pressure/kinetic theory of gas is not sufficient to explain the warming seen.
Nor even as a basic underlying basis for how the Earth's temperature is maintained.
The suns effect cannot be ignored, and to do so is to postulate that if sun did not exist the Earth would still be a warm place to live which is patently false.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[dywolf]

also, copy and pasting something from a denialist website full of other such bad science, that you dont understand and arent even capable of understanding why it is wrong, does not make for a compelling argument.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Jane Q. Public]

t also completely ignores the numerous experiments showing the ability of various gases (or other materials reall) to absorb radiated energy. All matrials can absorb radiated energy. Some re-radiate better than others, some retain it better than others.

You are grossly oversimplifying the radiation physics of the situation.

Just one example: if your gas absorbs radiation, and becomes hotter, what happens to it? At the risk of oversimplifying things myself, it expands, and rises in the atmosphere. There, it radiates its heat out to space.

Simple radiative heating of an already-warmer surface by cooler gases is a physical impossibility. Further, it doesn't happen via conduction or convection because convection carries warm gases AWAY from the surface.

So while I may not accept the gravimetric theory of warming on its face, neither does your explanation explain "greenhouse" warming.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[khayman80]

... if your gas absorbs radiation, and becomes hotter, what happens to it? At the risk of oversimplifying things myself, it expands, and rises in the atmosphere. There, it radiates its heat out to space. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Without gases which absorb IR, your hot gas would have been able to radiate its heat out to space even without rising in the atmosphere. In that case, even the surface would be able to radiate its heat directly to space.

But in the presence of gases which absorb IR, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation. That's because radiating gases have raised Earth's effective radiating level to ~7 km above sea level.

... Simple radiative heating of an already-warmer surface by cooler gases is a physical impossibility. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Nonsense. Without radiating gases, net radiative heat transfer happens directly between the surface and the 2.7K CMBR. Jane seems to understand that net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Conservation of energy means that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing, and a quick calculation yields an equilibrium surface temperature for Earth of -17C.

That's much colder than Earth's actual average surface temperature of +15C because net heat transfer to the frigid 2.7K CMBR is very rapid due to the fact that Tb is a tiny 2.7K. Very rapid net heat transfer means an Earth without radiating gases in the atmosphere could lose heat very rapidly, which would make it very cold.

Adding radiating gases just raises the effective radiating level above the surface. Conservation of energy forces the effective radiating level to have that temperature of -17C, otherwise heat would be building up (or down) below that level, which would cause warming (or cooling).

But in the presence of radiating gases, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Instead, it radiates (and convects) to the effective radiating level. Net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is now the -17C effective radiating level. But this means Tb = 256K, which is much larger than 2.7K. Therefore net radiative heat transfer from the surface is much slower than without radiating gases. Reducing radiative heat transfer while keeping sunlight constant results in surface warming.

I've just described the radiative component, but I've also described the convective component, which doesn't alter the basic fact that adding radiating gases to an atmosphere raises the effective radiating level and warms the surface. That's because the Earth can't convect heat to the near-vacuum of space, it can only radiate heat away. That's why radiative heat transfer dominates Earth's top of the atmosphere energy balance.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[david_thornley]

Turning methane into carbon dioxide roughly triples the weight of the greenhouse gas (while water vapor it a greenhouse gas, it doesn't create global warming on its own, since how much is in the atmosphere is more or less self-regulating). This means that 4 million tons of methane will turn into about 12 million tons of CO2. However, one ppm of CO2 is about 8 billion tons, so it would take centuries for the given methane releases to have a noticeable impact.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Curunir_wolf]

The 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document and database (which still remains the gold standard today and has not changed despite 39 years of greenhouse gas emissions)

Funny how you suddenly favour a model According to it, it should be exactly the same temperature all day and all year around at any place on Earth's surface. At least according to your interpretation of it.

In this case, not an opaque computer model with unspecified parameters and assumptions as input, but instead a clear mathematical model that can easily be tested.

that at its basis declares a fixed temperature distribution throughout the atmosphere.

Look again, that's exactly the opposite of what the model does.

dT/dh = -g/Cp

where

dT = change in temperature
dh = change in altitude
g = gravitational acceleration constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Plumpaquatsch]

It's funny that neither you nor the morons you copied your little theory from realized that the Standard Atmosphere model disagrees with the true and only model to explain global warming ("Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C "greenhouse effect"" you just touted. FAIL.

BTW if you think "fixed" means constant, why the hell am I even talking to you?

Re:Only CO2 matters

[mellon]

Right, that was my point. The methane doesn't just disappear.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[dywolf]

again you prove you do not know what you are talking about.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[dywolf]

again you prove you do not know what you are talking about.
do you even understand what a greenhouse is?
do you even understand the atmosphere and its layers?
here's a hint: the uppermost layers are not the warmest layers. you're right it is more complex than you present it...and that complexity is why you are wrong.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Curunir_wolf]

It's funny that neither you nor the morons you copied your little theory from realized that the Standard Atmosphere model disagrees with the true and only model to explain global warming ("Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C "greenhouse effect"" you just touted.

Not sure what you're trying to assert here. There is nothing in the "Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory" that explains global warming - it's used to calculate the average global temperature of a planetary body, and does so very accurately without using "radiative forcing" as a feedback mechanism. That pretty much disproves radiative forcing, since the Maxwell theory is so accurate without it.

BTW if you think "fixed" means constant, why the hell am I even talking to you?

I don't know what your context is, here, but it seems to have changed. You originally said "should be exactly the same temperature all day and all year around at any place on Earth's surface." How is that not "constant". Of course temperature changes, because the climate is chaotic. But we're looking for a global average temperature over a long term. There is no model anywhere that will tell you with any accuracy the surface temperature at any given time. The best we have is using current observations to predict temperature within a few degrees 10 days to 2 weeks out.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Plumpaquatsch]

It's funny that neither you nor the morons you copied your little theory from realized that the Standard Atmosphere model disagrees with the true and only model to explain global warming ("Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C "greenhouse effect"" you just touted.

Not sure what you're trying to assert here. There is nothing in the "Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory" that explains global warming - it's used to calculate the average global temperature of a planetary body, and does so very accurately without using "radiative forcing" as a feedback mechanism. That pretty much disproves radiative forcing, since the Maxwell theory is so accurate without it.

It obviously isn't accurate, as proven by the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Didn't you fucking notice? Just look at the fucking temperature at 50 km.

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Curunir_wolf]

It obviously isn't accurate, as proven by the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Didn't you fucking notice? Just look at the fucking temperature at 50 km.

The temperature chart calculates a temperature of about -17C at 50 Km, with a pressure of about 5.4 mb. That's in line with everything else I can find. What do you think the temperature at 50 km is, anyway?

Re:Only CO2 matters

[Plumpaquatsch]

It obviously isn't accurate, as proven by the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Didn't you fucking notice? Just look at the fucking temperature at 50 km.

The temperature chart calculates a temperature of about -17C at 50 Km, with a pressure of about 5.4 mb. That's in line with everything else I can find. What do you think the temperature at 50 km is, anyway?

That calculator uses the fixed data from the standard atmosphere. Which fucking disagrees with Maxwell's theory - according to him it should be colder at 50km than at 25.. Will you get that into your skull already?

Re:Only CO2 matters

[david_thornley]

The methane disappears as methane. Methane has a molecular weight of 16, and carbon dioxide has a molecular weight of 44, so the four million tons annually mentioned in TFS will eventually turn into something like eleven million tons of carbon dioxide. That's really not much.

The atmosphere weighs something over five quadrillion tons (source: a Google search I'm not going to recreate here). We measure carbon dioxide in parts per million, and one millionth of five quadrillion is five billion. We want number of molecules rather than total mass, so we need to take into account the fact that air molecular weight is about 0.8*28 + 0.2*32 = 30.8 while the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 44, roughly half again as much, so one ppm of CO2 is something like 7.5 or 8 billion tons. Feel free to correct me here.

So, the methane will have some effect as long as it remains methane, but it will turn to insufficient carbon dioxide to make much of a difference.

You know what this sounds like, right?

[GameboyRMH]

I know the methane clathrate gun hypothesis was disproven, but the difference between that and this becomes academic beyond certain amounts of warming.

Re:"Expected", "could", and "maybe"

[TuringTest]

Have you ever heard of the Pascal wager?

The (un)likelyhood of an unwelcome outcome should be weighted by the severity of harm if it happens, to make a rational informed decision.

Re:"Expected", "could", and "maybe"

[mellon]

Expected, could and maybe do not have probabilities assigned. So when you say "with a very low probability," you are putting words in gmustera's mouth. The probability isn't very low. It's likely that this caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event. But I'm sure that you, with your anti-government rhetoric and your bunker in the basement, will survive an extinction event just fine. No doubt you've done the science, and figured out how much stockpiled oxygen you need to stockpile to get through it, and how big your airtight greenhousese need to be to grow the food you won't be able to safely grow outside, and that's why you're not worried.

Remember that uncertainty cuts both ways, Padawan.

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[Crashmarik]

What I am referring to is the fact if you had petascale processor back in the 70s it wouldn't have mattered. The understanding of the underlying physical system has changed. If you don't have adequate knowledge of the system your model will never yield accurate results.

wrong extinction

[rossdee]

"First, what's pretty definite about the Permian Extinction is that a really big meteor hit near Chicxulub, in the gullf of Mexico, at the right time to contribute to it."

The Chicxulub impact was at the end of the Cretaceous 65 million years ago

The Permian ended 252 million years ago, and the initial event that started that extinction was mass vulcanism, but the methane release added to the CO2 warming, and over 95% of species were wiped out.

If man made C02 emmissions continued at the current rate for long enough then it could happen like that again, some life will survive of course, but probably not H-Sapiens unless we go elsewhere (off of this rock) before it happens.

Re:wrong extinction

[david_thornley]

First, no matter what happens to this particular rock, for the next few hundred million years it will be by far the most hospitable spot in the solar system.

Second, humans will survive a mass extinction event. We're very, very good at adapting to various conditions.

Re:wrong extinction

[david_thornley]

And which part of the Solar System off Earth is anywhere near as habitable as a Cretaceous-equivalent Earth? It's got reasonably survivable temperatures, it's got liquid water (do you realize how rare that is?), actual OXYGEN in the atmosphere, etc.

The return of Cthulhu might be really bad...

[bradley13]

For those interested, this appears to be the paper. The paper itself is paywalled; you can look at the supplementary material, which includes the diagrams. Oddly, the paper does not seem to be online at the university, even though other papers by the various authors are. Why do I know this? Because I wanted to see the temperature data that they used, so I went hunting.

The paper implies that the temperature data is very noisy, but that they were able to extract a signal anyway. The raw data should be provided in the supplementary material, so that people could attempt to replicate/verify this essential finding. Of course, the raw data are no where to be found. So we have no way to check.

Personally, I'm tired of "science" like this. If you're going to make a claim, put your damn data out there where anyone can see it. Raw data, a clear description of how you processed it, program code if you wrote a program. Otherwise, you're no better than the astrologist pontificating about the influence of Venus on your dog's love life.

Re:The return of Cthulhu might be really bad...

[david_thornley]

Collecting raw data can be expensive and difficult, and some people like to milk their raw data for a few papers or so while they've still got exclusive access. It isn't ideal, but there's lots that isn't ideal about how science works.

Re:The return of Cthulhu might be really bad...

[hairykrishna]

From a quick read it appears to be data from; World Ocean Database 2013 (National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC). Apparently available here; http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/W...

In the paper they specify what program they used and how they processed the data. It is the first part of their 'methods' section.

What was the problem?

People deny the problem

[doug141]

Because they don't like the solution.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[Crashmarik]

Ohh that is a whole nother can o worms.

That question is "when is the science good enough to dislocate the entire world and crush people's dreams of a better life"

Not new

[Lorens]

sounds a lot like The Swarm by Frank Schatzing (excellent book...)

i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[publiclurker]

that I have to go back almost 40 years to find something that I can try to claim gives me a reason to continue to lie.

Re:i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[Curunir_wolf]

that I have to go back almost 40 years to find something that I can try to claim gives me a reason to continue to lie.

Oh, of course. We should throw out Relativity, too, it's even older.

Re:i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[dywolf]

Unlike what you said, it hasnt been disproven.

Re:i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[Curunir_wolf]

Unlike what you said, it hasnt been disproven.

You, sir, are a damn liar. Contrary to your ridiculous assertion, the US Standard Atmosphere Model and satellite and other observations prove Maxwell's Mass/Gravity/Pressure theory of the 'Greenhouse Effect' is, in fact, correct.

If you've seen some claim that the dT/dh = -g/Cp equation has been "disproven", I'd love to see it. Don't bother with non-peer-reviewed blog posts, either.

Re:i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[dywolf]

and now you're projecting.
you sir are not only a damned liar, but a fool.
the idea, the concept that your formula controls the earths temperature is what has been disproven.

you are misapplying, misusing, and abusing that formula.
like using general relativity to explain why the gasoline in your car's engine goes BOOM.

no scientist has seriously postulated that theory for the control of earth's temperature since the 70s.
the very concept means that you think the sun has absolutely no effect on earth's temperature.

that gas theory, that formula, does not and cannot account for the warming trend in any way shape or form.
it cannot even account for the basic fundamental difference in temperatures between day and night.
nor can it account for the difference in temperatures between the differant locations on the planet, such as the the difference between the poles and the equator.

in order for that formula to be the control, to be the accurate model, the sun must have no effect on the earth's temperature.
further it would demand as an outcome that earth must be largely uniform in temperature globally with the chief controlling factor being altitude,
not time of day or latitude, both of which are constitute a variance in the amount of sunlight recieved.

as i said: are you seriously claiming that the sun has no effect?
if you are then are even bigger idiot than I thought.

you are a crackpot, and you do not know what you are talking about.

Re:i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[Curunir_wolf]

the idea, the concept that your formula controls the earths temperature is what has been disproven.

Because you said so. Got it.

I'll remember who NOT to ask for scientific evidence in the future.

the very concept means that you think the sun has absolutely no effect on earth's temperature.

Incorrect. You need to determine the Earth's base equilibrium temperature with the Sun, which was unknown in the 1970's. We now have satellite observations that give is that (Te = 255K). They didn't have that in 1976, so they used the known surface temperature. But it works just the same with more precise measurements.

that gas theory, that formula, does not and cannot account for the warming trend in any way shape or form. it cannot even account for the basic fundamental difference in temperatures between day and night. nor can it account for the difference in temperatures between the differant locations on the planet, such as the the difference between the poles and the equator.

Neither can any other theory, certainly not the "radiative forcing" theories that drive the climate change alarmism. The formula DOES, however, when combined with satellite observations, DISPROVES "radiative forcing", because it would result in temperatures much higher than we have today. So it cannot be true.

Re:i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[dywolf]

Not even that far in to the thing, a debunking frm an actual climate scientist:

JoelShore says: January 22, 2012 at 12:16 pm I’ll post here what I communicated to Ned Nikolov directly:

Thanks for the reply.

First, I would like to say what I think is good about this reply: It is well-written and clearly explains your thinking and I thank you for that. Furthermore, the actual calculations that you do appear to be correct.

However, I believe there are some quite erroneous statements and interpretations as discussed below that will presumably set the stage for major incorrect conclusions in the second part of the reply.

Here is a brief discussion of the most major errors that I found:

page 3:

“Since Earth’s mean surface temperature is 287.6K (+14.4C), the present theory estimates the size of ATE to be 287.6K – 254.6K = 33K. However, as pointed out by other studies, this approach suffers from a serious logical error. Removing the atmosphere (or even just the water vapor in it) would result in a much lower planetary albedo, since clouds are responsible for most of Earth’s shortwave reflectance. Hence, one must use a different albedo (alpha_0) in Eq. (3) that only quantifies the actual surface reflectance. A recent analysis of Earth’s global energy budget by Trenberth et al. (2009) using satellite observations suggests 0.12. Serendipitously, this value is quite similar to the Moon bond albedo of 0.11 (see Table 1 in our original paper), thus allowing evaluation of Earth’s ATE using our natural satellite as a suitable PGB proxy. Inserting alpha_0 = 0.12 in Eq. (3) produces 269.6K, which translates into an ATE of only 18K (i.e. 287.6 – 269.6 = 18K).
This is mainly a semantic issue: The conventional assumption of a constant albedo is used in order to derive the temperature rise attributable to the greenhouse effect alone. It is true that clouds also have another effect, in that they change the planet’s albedo, but that is a separate issue. Furthermore, if you do want to imagine removing the albedo due to clouds, you really also have to then ask how the surface albedo of the colder planet will change due to the increase of snow and ice. (But thenDoes the planet still have water on it to form snow and ice? It depends by what magic we got rid of the IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere! We thus get into various hypotheticals!) I think the best “clean” statement that we have is that if we imagine somehow turning off the radiative greenhouse effect without changing anything else, then our planet would be about 33 K colder.

page 5:

“In a recent analytical study, Smith (2008) argued that Eq. (5) only describes the mean temperature of a non-rotating planet and that, if axial rotation and thermal capacity of the surface are explicitly accounted for, the average temperature of an airless planet would approach the effective emission temperature . It is beyond the scope of the current article to mathematically prove the fallacy of this argument. However, we will point out that increasing the mean equilibrium temperature of a physical body always requires a net input of extra energy. Adding axial rotation to a stationary planet residing in a vacuum, where there is no friction with the external environment does not provide any additional heat energy to the planet surface. Faster rotation and/or higher thermal inertia of the ground would only facilitate a more efficient spatial distribution of the absorbed solar energy, thus increasing the uniformity of the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, but could not affect the average surface temperature. Hence, Eq. (6) correctly describe (within the assumption of albedo uniformity) the global mean temperature of any airless planet, be it rotating or non-rotating.
NoYou guys have failed to fully understand the implications of Holder’s Inequality. First of all, there is no condition that says that additional thermal energy can

Re:i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[Curunir_wolf]

You are correct - there are issues with Nikolov's ideas (I was actually referencing Jelbring, but some of the ideas are similar), specifically, now can the equilibrium temperature of a black body be different with an atmosphere without GHGs? I don't think it can, but that doesn't mean that the tiny amount of CO2 is going to make up all the difference, and I think it's a good starting point to describe why the "radiative forcing" theory is clearly wrong.

There is a better discussion at (Oh Nos! DENIERS site) Watt's blog, and he has the same problem with those theories himself.

Re:i.e. I'm so desperate to deny reality...

[Curunir_wolf]

again, the only, THE ONLY source for this idiocy is a well known psuedo science website that hosts nothing but discredited BS.

I appreciate Joel's reasoned criticism (you could have just posted a link, but it appears you don't like to reference any of your claims), but it seems all you can come up with is bullshit ad hominems.

claiming that the excess CO2 in the atmospere is the result of "ocean outgassing".

The Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before humans were around. And there is certainly plenty of CO2 (and methane) present there, which also makes it into the atmosphere. Clearly there is currently a lot of anthropogenic sources of CO2 today. So I'm not sure what you're referring to that the "authors" said, or why you think it's wrong.

Here, this is their membership page, you more than qualify: http://theflatearthsociety.org... [theflatearthsociety.org]

What a fucking jackass tool you are. Stop posting on the Internet. You're making the whole thing dumber by your presence.

Re:"Expected", "could", and "maybe"

[mi]

Have you ever heard of the Pascal wager?

I certainly have! And it sure seems, the opportunity to destroy KKKapitalism helps sway the aforementioned Statists to the wrong side of the bet.

Re:"Expected", "could", and "maybe"

[mi]

The probability isn't very low.

Given the failure of all hitherto issued predictions about climate, the probability of yet another dire prediction being correct is very low. Past performance is indicative of future results in this domain...

It's likely that this caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event.

Right. And, had there been Al Gores at that time, I'm sure, they would've blamed humanity for it too.

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[dywolf]

first you say "nothing happened", then you say "20 years of warming".

which is it?
pick one.

because ive seen you do this before. you mementarily acknowledge warming, and then say nothing is happening.
you arent even a denier doing it for ideological reason, youre just a little kid trolling msg boards.

Re:The simple truth of the matter

[hey!]

Methane photooxidizes with a half life of ~21 days in sunlight at average insolation. It gets released and then breaks down harmlessly and naturally.

... into carbon dioxide and water vapor, eventually, through a of several intermediate products. So the presence of methane is *at least* as important as CO2, because that's what it decays into. Nothing in nature just "goes away", you have to ask what it becomes.

The half-life for tropospheric methane is about 8.5 years by the way (Bergamaschi, P., & Bousquet, P. (2008). Estimating sources and sinks of methane: An atmospheric view. In The Continental-Scale Greenhouse Gas Balance of Europe (pp. 113-133). Springer New York. Photoxidation of CH4 is not a major sink of tropospheric CH4. It does occur in the troposphere in the presence of high concentrations of NO and may be a contributor to the ozone in urban smog.

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[dywolf]

just because you say it doesnt make it true.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[dywolf]

We've covered this a million times.
But one more won't hurt.

"Methane breaks down."

This is true. But do you know what it breaks down into?
Hint: It starts with CO and ends with 2.

CO2.
Methane breaks down into CO2.

Re:Nothing we can do about it

[dywolf]

You keep saying that, but that doesnt make it true.

First, the Sun:
This is a solar activity compared to global temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Solar activity has actually declined over the past 40 years, while temperatures have gone up.
I'd challenge you to explain that, except you cant. And neither can the people you mention.
And the fact you even mention them shows your level of ignorance.

Piers Corbyn in particular claims to make accurate weather predictions up to a year in advance.
He isnt even a meteorologist. He is a fraud and a conman.

It's not the sun and there is zero scientific evidence to support such a claim.
If it were the sun, then we should be cooling right now. Which we are not.
End of story.

Next the models:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Same thing: you're wrong.
The models have been very accurate over time and only gotten better.

In case you think this is nothing

[WillAffleckUW]

A. We just set a record for global temperature this year.

B. Seattle set a record for temperature this year (and we're the least affected region due to Global Warming, so that's very bad for the rest of you)

C. The amount of methane release will be similar to what it was BEFORE HUMANS EXISTED. As in dinosaurs.

Now, keep up with your excuses for why you're so lazy.

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[riverat1]

Ohh that is a whole nother can o worms.

That question is "when is the science good enough to dislocate the entire world and crush people's dreams of a better life"

My question to you is why are you such a pessimist that you think it's impossible without the use of fossil fuels to have a better life?

Re:Nothing we can do about it

[riverat1]

Because man made CO2 is not causing global warming. The sun drives our climate, not CO2. Read the NIPCC reports.

Tobacco companies and others published reports about how tobacco use wasn't bad for you too. The even include some of the same people such as Fred Singer.

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[Crashmarik]

My question to you is why are you such a pessimist that you think it's impossible without the use of fossil fuels to have a better life?

Wow way to slam the oversimplify lever into overdrive.

I'll try for a basis we might both be able to agree on here. Improvements in living conditions correlate positively with per capita energy consumption (From whatever available resource be it animal power to nuclear). Barring artificial increases to the cost of fossil fuels they are still by far the cheapest sources of available energy. You can build a gas powered vehicle and run it for years, for less than the cost of a battery pack for an EV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... 1600$ U.S. how much does the battery pack on that Tesla cost ? That's transportation. They are also still the only reliable source for the electric grid with the exception of nuclear. You can talk about how cheap P.V. is all you want but without net metering backed up by a grid the economics are nowhere near as rosy.

So you raise the cost for people around the world to get the kind of things we consider basics not high life here just the basics, refrigerated food, safe water, communications systems that connect you to the world around you, opportunity to travel. Will making this more expensive and difficult for them to acquire make it impossible ? It's certainly going to make it harder and take longer and maybe not happen at all. It's for damn certain going to make sure some of those people will not get to that spot and not even have hope of getting there.

 

Re:What we actually Need is some Bloody Panic

[riverat1]

First let me just state that realistically we won't end the use of fossil fuels overnight. It's at best a 30 or 40 year process. Second the price of fossil fuels doesn't include the cost of a lot of externalities such as pollution and global warming so from a holistic point of view the price is artificially low.

As far as the economics of alternative energy and batteries they are reaching the point of being competitive with traditional fossil fuels and I expect they will continue on the path they're on for some time to come. Regarding Tesla batteries don't you think the factory that Elon Musk will bring the price down and other advances will do the same? I am confident that within 20 years or so it will be fossil fuels that aren't competitive for most applications.

On nuclear power I'm not against it per se but the biggest reason there hasn't been more nuclear over the past several decades was that it's very expensive compared to the fossil fuel plants they were building.

Re:"Expected", "could", and "maybe"

[mellon]

If all predictions had indeed not come to pass, you might have a point. But of course that's hyperbole, which is to say: you are making shit up. In the real, fact-based world climate science has an all-too-good track record. Yes, it is not perfectly accurate, but that's really not something with which to comfort yourself. If you get run over by a bus, it doesn't matter whether it hits you from the front or the side: you're still dead. It's best to pay attention and get out of the way when there is a bus bearing down on you. And as for extinction events, it doesn't matter whether they're human-caused or not. What matters is not being taken out by them. Or anyway, so the thinking goes...

Liquid water above frozen seafloor?

[Barryke]

So, the freezing point of Methane is -182,5 C and its trapped below frozen underground layers of water.
I wonder .. does the frozen dirt below the seafloor have liquid water above it?

Re:"Expected", "could", and "maybe"

[mi]

In the real, fact-based world climate science has an all-too-good track record

Citations needed. Please, provides pairs of links: the first link in each pair pointing at a prediction of something bad made by a global-warming alarmist, and the second — to the prediction materializing (within 10% of the predicted value, whatever that may be).

Can you manage 3 such pairs?

And as for extinction events, it doesn't matter whether they're human-caused or not.

If they aren't human-caused to begin with, then altering humanity's behavior to prevent them seems silly.

Unless, of course, your goal is to affect the altering in the first place — and the hypothetical "extinction event" is used simply as a scare-crow...

Re:"Expected", "could", and "maybe"

[TuringTest]

If I check out the windows and there were rioters and police shooting at them, I'd be wary of going out that day, yes.

Re:"Expected", "could", and "maybe"

[TuringTest]

Do you have a suggestion on how to modify our behavior to keep the sun from exploding?