E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NOAA
In this visualization, the Gulf Stream is seen as the dark red current coming into the Atlantic from the Gulf of Mexico.
A changing Gulf Stream off the East Coast has destabilized frozen methane deposits trapped under nearly 4,000 square miles of seafloor, scientists reported Wednesday. And since methane is even more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas, the researchers said, any large-scale release could have significant climate impacts.
Temperature changes in the Gulf Stream are "rapidly destabilizing methane hydrate along a broad swathe of the North American margin," the experts said in a study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.
Using seismic records and ocean models, the team estimated that 2.5 gigatonnes of frozen methane hydrate are being destabilized and could separate into methane gas and water.
It is not clear if that is happening yet, but that methane gas would have the potential to rise up through the ocean and into the atmosphere, where it would add to the greenhouse gases warming Earth.
The 2.5 gigatonnes isn't enough to trigger a sudden climate shift, but the team worries that other areas around the globe might be seeing a similar destabilization.
USGS
Methane hydrate samples
"It is unlikely that the western North Atlantic margin is the only area experiencing changing ocean currents," they noted. "Our estimate ... may therefore represent only a fraction of the methane hydrate currently destabilizing globally."
The wider destabilization evidence, co-author Ben Phrampus told NBC News, includes data from the Arctic and Alaska's northern slope in the Beaufort Sea.
And it's not just under the seafloor that methane has been locked up. Some Arctic land area are seeing permafrost thaw, which could release methane stored there as well.
An expert who was not part of the study said it suggests that methane could become a bigger climate factor than carbon dioxide.
"We may approach a turning point" from a warming driven by man-made carbon dioxide to a warming driven by methane, Jurgen Mienert, the geology department chair at Norway's University of Tromso, told NBC News.
"The interactions between the warming Arctic Ocean and the potentially huge methane-ice reservoirs beneath the Arctic Ocean floor point towards increasing instability," he added.
For thousands of years, permafrost has trapped Siberia's carbon-rich soil, a compost of Ice Age plant and animal remains. But global warming is melting the permafrost and exposing the soil, causing highly flammable methane to seep out. NBC's Jim Maceda reports.
He also noted, however, that "one of the big unknowns is the magnitude of rapid methane escape from the ocean floor, and how natural filter systems react and affect the future ocean, its environment and the climate."
Relate: Thawing Arctic permafrost is releasing methane
Another unknown is what caused the Gulf Stream changes, said Phrampus, an earth sciences PhD candidate at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
"Multiple events can play a factor, such as changing sea level or an addition of cold/fresh water from the north," Phrampus said, adding he was hopeful that the changes might be "reversible under their own influence."
But, he added, "we need more data to resolve this, and we are currently investigating this process."
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Teen arrested in killing of Jessica Ridgeway, 10-year-old Colo. girl
- Colo. wildfire forces hundreds to evacuate
- Kennedy nephew Michael Skakel denied parole in 1975 murder
- Teacher's aide suspended after role in '65 torture death
- Man shot, killed at Georgia megachurch; suspect on the loose
- Police: Louisiana woman set herself on fire, wrote racial slurs
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
This climate change/AGW phenomenon is driving me crazy.
Every year the weather changes from cold and miserable to warm and comfortable for several weeks at a time. I have been living at my current residence for 15+ years and every year is/has been different from previous years. We must invoke very precise weather controls.
Hopefully we may soon be able to ensure that all weather events conform to a government/UN determined cooky cutter pattern. Once we can control year to year, decade to decade, and century to century weather so each year's weather exactly replicates previous years, we can over time create the perfect climate.
Nobody is suggesting controlling the weather or the climate. We are only discussing the scientifically demonstrated human effects on the long-term climate. If science drives you crazy, who's problem is that?
HAHAHAHAH - yeah you just want to control HUMANS - we already know that
A number of years ago several enterprising scientists suggested installing large collection domes over known methane hydrate deposits to collect and use that methane for cheap energy on land. Of course, the governments of the world called those scientists 'crazy', even denying those methane hydrate deposits would ever become a problem. Apparently they were wrong -- the governments -- and the methane is going to waste. It could have been captured for decades and kept out of the atmosphere, but the governments are never thinking about cheap energy while we're all addicted to oil. What if the Atlantic Ocean eventually catches fire from all that methane? Now wouldn't that be a fun thing to happen to Bermuda and the Caribbean.
I somehow doubt that would be very cheap. I would think the releases wold be too diffuse for that. But there may be some way to collect it closer to the source.
The earth does not take sides. There are no winners and losers, as far as the earth is concerned. Simply put, the earth will not cry for the loss of our species. And beyond our own species, the rate of extinction of other species is increasing geometrically. There is nothing in the way of us making the cultural changes that may save our species and many others but our own egos.
The people who think they are so smart as to know what the weather is doing and will do in any future scenario are really just arrogant control freaks. For crying out loud - current weather scientists are only about 50% correct on predicting the weather FOR THE SAME DAY. So - um - not going to listen to anyone who thinks they know what the weather is going to do in the FUTURE
The forecasting of 5-10 day weather is not the same as GW, but from your comments I wouldn't expect you to know that.
I'd be more worried about the effects of the methane on the ships at the surface. Underwater methane bubbles have been implicated in a number of ship sinkings over the years; the methane, being a gas, has a much lower density than seawater, so if a large-enough bubble were to reach the surface at the same time as a ship was in the area the ship would lose all buoyancy and sink like a stone with virtually no warning.
If we don't cure the problem, Mother Nature is going to cure the problem herself, by getting rid of mankind. Of course, Mother Nature's methods tend to be more crude than ours, which probably means starting the whole planet over again. Time is running out fast, mankind! Better get busy NOW! You can never say you haven't had every possible warning along the way. - RC
PS - Just a word to the wise. These outside offensive totalitarian ETs want to get rid of us, too! If they are allied with Mother Nature, together they are probably going to jointly succeed, especially if they have already covertly sabotaged our human world from within, which BTW they already have!
These people need to read up on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. This is a cycle. Nothing man has done or can do will change it.
The AMO has roughly a 70 year cycle. Right now it is in the warm part of that cycle. This is why some are predicting a return to the hurricane patterns of the 1950s when the east coast was hit by several hurricanes. The 1950s was the last time the AMO was cycling through its warm phase. (Wait, wasn't that 70 years ago?)
Anyone that wants to learn a little about cyclical ocean currents and what they can mean to hurricanes and other weather can check out this from Meteorologist Joe Bastardi.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/joe-bastardi-show-parallels-to-the-1950s-and-tells-us-what-to-expect-looking-forward/
Wait. Isn't there a chance that hurricane Sandy could hit the east coast? Sounds like Joe might be right.
What an immoral unethical misinformation spreading POS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_eJdX6y4hM&feature=related
Once again for all the assorted warblers of "Wish Physics", let's go over the action of methane, H2O, CO2 as to the source of relative potency as a green house gas.
The effectiveness of the various green house gases to trap heat even in small concentrations arises from the fact that they selectively intercept disjoint regions of the solar spectrum.
Because the Sun is hotter (5525K) than the Earth (300K), the incoming (black body) radiation energy is strongly concentrated in visible light. Visible light is visible because if you are a successful organism evolving photo-receptors for this planet, then you will win if you can see where the illumination is strongest. Now because the Earth is far cooler than the Sun, when the Earth cools its (black body} radiation energy is strongly concentrated in infra-red light. "Green house gas" molecules have a great affinity for the capture of infra-red light, so large chunks of the outgoing radiative energy are now stopped in the green house gas. If this heat was only kept in the green house gas, there would not be much of an effect on our heat balance. If you imagine that the heat capacity of only the green house gas stored the captured heat, then for sure that wouldn't amount to squat, but that picture is completely false.
The heat captured by the green house gas molecule, is then shared by collisions with all the other gases in the air. That process is not reversible directly, and the loss of heat back into space depends on the quasi black body radiative transfer from the atmosphere as a whole. Since CO2 is such a strong absorber in spectral regions (10.2 - 11 µm) different from H2O and since the H2O concentration is largely fixed by the general thermal equilibrium of air and water on the planet, the CO2 and also CH4 species are the sensitive drivers of net heat balance. Encroaching on the only spectral window left to let the heat escape at night. CO2 chews in from the long wavelength side, while CH4 closes down the short wavelength side (7 - 8 µm). Burping vast quantities of CH4 means added absorption in a bad part of the spectrum with lots of leverage to close the cooling window!
As usual the common Wish Physics arguments, pushed by Oil Shills like the Koch crowd, just fail, nobody in the professional climate science community is lying to you. The situation is very similar to the actions of those unscrupulous folks who took (and likely still take) the tobacco companies money to lie to us about lung cancer.
The common pride of ignorance among climate science deniers is the real lie here, it only serves to perpetuate the problem and to dilute everyone's courage to examine the proper extent to which we should try and mitigate the AGW problem.
For those with an Oil Shill agenda, the science is "hard to accept" because the solutions will diminish fossil fuel profit margins, at least in the short term, which is all they care about. Even James Mountain ("of ignorance?") Inhofe, the vocal denier fool of the Senate, recently admitted that he was "on your side of this issue" until he learned the cost of remediation. As if the validity of the science depended on that!
So many myths, half truths, and ideological talking points here. Most people don't hesitate to buy insurance for the relatively low likelihood of a major house fire because the potential losses are so great. Society should try learning what IS scientifically established regarding a carbon cycle that is WAY out of balance (and then buy "insurance" accordingly). A reasonable start:
understandit.ml1.net
bitly.com/abWiMC
"Using seismic data and Computer Models" Mmmm. So who programed the Computer Models...People just put too much trust and belief in Models..So now we are all to jump because of what a Computer Model which was programmed by a person with an agenda and or had the answer first and then wrote the program to create the answer....I'm sorry but these Climate Scientists no longer have any creditability with me. Having studied quite a bit of geology being a rock hound I find it interesting that they picked this area to create this event from, now why did they do that,,,therein lies the truth.....
It is not "who" programmed the Computer Models ..... but "who" told the programmers what to include in those Computer Modeling Programs. And that was those silly Climate Scientists, .... James Hansen et els.
And they told those programmers to include the "feedback" and "warming effect" of the "greenhouse" gas CO2 ........ but to NOT INCLUDE the "feedback" and "warming effect" of the "greenhouse" gas H2O vapor because doing so would prove that AGW was "junk science" ..... and then they would be out of a job and surviving on Food Stamps.
Is that top picture supposed to have Obama in it or am I noticing something I'm not supposed to?
A few points need to be clarified here:
1. Human emitted CO2 is the forcing that is warming the ocean.
2. This is changing the gulf stream, making it hotter.
3. This, in turn, is melting the clathrates (methane).
4. So human CO2 emission is the forcing and methane release is the feedback.
5. No matter how powerful the feedback, it is still caused by the forcing (human CO2).
6. Continued emission of CO2 only makes the problem worse.
7. Methane will never be in the 'driver's seat' (forcing) when it comes to global warming. That role is and always will be human CO2 emission.
8. There may be enough forcing (human CO2) already in the atmosphere to result in a large methane release. This result is very, very bad.
9. But a continued forcing (more and more human CO2) may result in even more powerful feedbacks (methane gun).
10. So the conclusion to draw here is that, if the methane monster is starting to be driven out of the bag by human CO2 forcing, then it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that we reduce those emissions in every way possible to prevent catastrophe.
Luthiel, given the FACT that both atmospheric CO2 and H2O vapor are "greenhouse" gasses ..... why did you intentionally OMIT the forcing, feedback and warming effect of the H2O vapor in your above stated "points" that needed to be "clarified"?
Omitting the primary and most potent one of the "greenhouse" gasses is what I would call "obfuscations", not "clarifications".
Have you forgotten one important point: Without CO2 humans would not be here.
HA, ...... and beer wouldn't be my "drink of choice".
Get over it people, nature has done this before and will again. No matter what you think nature cannot be controlled!
SamC, Luthiel careful with the Wish Physics here.
The bounds of the night time radiation window are set by H2O on the high and low side, but CH4 and CO2 encroach on that window from the high and low side, respectively.
The problems get enhanced by either methane or carbon dioxide as concentrations rise unchecked, but water vapor is sitting at a stable global equilibrium, as a stable baseline on the rate calculus.
We are not adding water vapor, but we are adding the other greenhouse gases, and we are seeing them shrink the width of that radiation spectral band for night time cooling. Narrowing the cooling window from either side lowers the net cooling and drives the mean temperature higher.
Here it is, an article about methane gas being released because of ocean current changes and I see these down right STUPID comments about republicans and Obama.
The earth has it's own life cycle and yes I hate to see litter and trash strewn all over the place, the heavy air pollution that gets trapped in valleys and against mountain ranges due to prevailing winds ect. but this global warming and freezing was happening long before mankind and will happen after mankind. Do we effect it ? Yes I suppose we do to some degree but if you people whining about civilization and man effecting the environment will be the first to give up your electricity, cars, cell phones, computers and take a real stand , THEN I might take your bleating BS seriously.
Rterry, your above statement is horrendously inadequate for explaining what you think you are trying to explain. If interested, …. continue reading.
“Yes”, Reterry, …. and the day time radiation window is also set by H2O vapor on the high and low side, and CH4 and CO2 encroach on that window from the high and low side also.
And Rterry, there is both a “radiation window” and a ”re-radiation window” and me thinks you are referring to the ”re-radiation window” in your above comment. And ignoring one (1) of those “windows” is bad enough, but ignoring both of them during the day time is awful. And ignoring the “unidirectional buffering” of both those “windows” is really gawd awful.
And I stated the above, Rterry, because clouds, fog and mists are all forms of H2O vapor which have collected into larger “droplets” of water and are visible to the naked eye, …. whereas the H2O vapor we refer to as “humidity” can not be seen with the naked eye. And that is because of the density of the larger “droplets” of water and the fact that the greater the mass density of the air …. then the greater the absorption/re-radiation and/or reflection will be for thermal energy that is passing thru the atmosphere.
But now the effects of clouds, fogs and mists relative to incoming solar energy and/or re-emitted energy from the earth’s surface ….. are quite different (extremely more pronounced) than the effects of humidity. Again, this is because of their density (mass).
Clouds, fogs and mists act as a unidirectional buffer to both the incoming solar energy and the re-radiated energy from the earth’s surface. And the best way to explain this is by examples.
Night time cloud cover or fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from cooling off as fast because they per say buffer the re-radiated energy.
Day time cloud cover or morning fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from warming up as fast because they per say buffer the incoming solar energy.
Now back to your “encroach” comment.
Rterry, it is the “quantity” of the thermal energy associated with that “encroachment” claim being touted by the proponents of AGW that relegates said claims to “junk science” status.
Do the math, Rterry, there absolutely insufficient quantities (ppm) of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere to make one iota of measurable difference in their ability to affect near-surface air temperatures. Thus, there is NO encroachment factor associated with their presence in the atmosphere. “Duh”, if there is no encroachment in extremely low humidity desert areas around the world then there is NO encroachment in any other places around the world.
Rterry, there is absolutely nothing, no entity, that is “in equilibrium” in earth’s atmosphere. And besides, who gives a crapolla about the “global equilibrium” of anything when near-surface air temperature is the subject being discussed?
Rterry, the number of college football players in the US is also at a “stable equilibrium” but knowing that is not going to help you one damn bit in predicting which teams will be the “winners” of the 2013 Football Season.
Rterry, I offer the suggestion that you start a “re-learning” of Science from scholarly accredited textbooks and to no longer acquire said knowledge from Internet Forums and published “junk science” opinions and commentary.
CO2 causing AGW is “junk science”, pure n’ simple. The same as is Intelligent Design. But if that is what pleases and soothes your emotional “fancy” then so be it.
Sorry but you need to do the math, or study the work out in the literature. You clearly do not have even a whit's understanding of the local thermodynamic equilibrium between air gases and radiation. The low concentrations of the green house gases (even H2O) are heavily leveraged by the collision rates sharing their trapped radiation with other major air gases. This process goes dominantly one way, quenching the absorbed radiation in the green house gas molecules before it has a chance to re-radiate and diffuse to higher altitude, where it would be optically thin and quickly lost.
So, even though all our favorite green house gases (including the water vapor) are in minor concentrations, the cumulative effect is that only 15 - 30 % of the upwardly directed thermal radiation is transmitted to space.
Nobody is lying to you on this, and the rate equations can account for these dynamics in a testable way — unlike ID which is not testable even in principle.
Crickets from SamC.
HA, those crickets in the snowstorm took my power out and my UPS didn't "beep" before it ran out of juice and ...... anyway:
Reterry, was that your “best shot” at a personal attack against my person, or what?
And your “thermodynamic equilibrium” thingy appears to be some sort of an oxymoron because I am not aware of any two (2) “anythings” about earth’s atmosphere that is in equilibrium. Now be serious, you know very well that a dynamically changing environment can not be in equilibrium.
“Trapped radiation”, … huh? Apparently you are not aware of the fact that there is no known entity in the universe that is capable of “trapping” thermal energy, …. except for the per say Black Holes located at the center of galaxies.
And best you learn something about atmospheric H20 vapor “at this link”, because it is the 3rd most abundant gas in the earth’s atmosphere …. with only nitrogen and oxygen having greater quantities.
And just what is that “quenching” thingy, ……. a new Law of Physics that I am not aware of? Now you can convert thermal energy to mass (E=MC2) but you can't be "trapping" it.
Thermal energy being emitted from an atmospheric molecule does not radiate in a per say “dominate” direction... anymore than does the energy radiated from the Sun.
At 1% to 4%, H2O vapor is only a minor concentration when compared to Nitrogen and Oxygen. But when compared to the other per say “greenhouse” gases it is an ultra major concentration. To wit:
Thus, there is up to 105 times more H2O vapor than CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere ... and a molecule of H2O will absorb twice as much "heat" energy than a CO2 molecule .... and immediately start radiating it, of course.
Your claim of “non-lying” does not negate the factual evidence. Now they are either “dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks” ….. or they are “flat out lying”, take your choice.
It is a FACT that every proponent of AGW claims that both CO2 and H2O vapor are “greenhouse” gases that contribute a “warming effect” to the surface temperatures.
It is a FACT that every proponent of AGW claims that it is the CO2 that is causing the increases in surface temperatures.
And it is a FACT that none of the proponents of AGW are even mentioning the non-cloud H2O vapor or it’s affect on the surface temperatures.
Knowing full well that non-cloud H2O vapor (humidity) causes a "warming effect" of the atmosphere ..... but refusing to include said in any studies, reports or commentary, does in fact, constitute a dastardly act of lying to mask their less than honest actions.
Here, bout everyone knows what "a Warm Front is" because their TV Weatherperson is always telling them. And if you "click" on that hyper-link and read the article then you will also know its the H2O vapor (humidity) that causes the increased temperatures, ..... not the CO2..
And every Degreed climate scientist know that to be a FACT.
As the following exerted quote from a Degreed "AGW" biased dude clearly proves ... as one can easily recognized by his "weazelworded" rhetoric, to wit:
HA, but he never states "When humidity is included".... and there is always horrendous amounts of humidity in the Tropic, Sub-tropic and Temperate Zones where 99% of all surface temperatures are monitored and recorded, .... therefore his above claims of "CO2 contributes to at least a third" and "20% from CO2" are devious, dishonest and disengenuous and as phony as a roll of rotten baloney.
That University at Albany is teaching "junk science".
Cheers
Hah, indeed. What "personal attack"? I just question your errors in thinking, and they are legion.
Like I said above, the heat capacity of CO2 or H2O or CH4 (taken in isolation) is largely irrelevant when viewing the heat balance between the various atmospheric gases and the thermal radiation. That "quenching thingy" is all important, as well as the wavelength dependent opacity of each gas.
However, since your logic is pretty much all over the map on this, let's continue this discussion after you cite to me some refereed literature that shows quantitatively how your alleged alternative model stacks up against the well known rules, models, and principles of radiation transport and the establishment of LTE between radiation and matter.
now we hear only the crickets .... can't find the citations there Sammy?
HA, and those crickets attacked again, taking my power out at 8 PM Tuesday night and it wasn't restored until 8 PM Wednesday night. And there is still like 180,000 without power here in WV. Some places they got over 40" of snowfall.
You questioned nothing. You made a definitive statement in criticism of my competence. To wit:
Reterry, it matters little whether or not I understand your per say "thermodynamic equilibrium" of the atmosphere because I done told you there is no equilibrium of said in the earth's atmosphere because it is not a "closed" system. To wit:
Just what is it about "same temperature throughout, same pressure throughout, etc. etc" that has you completely baffled?
GIMME A BREAK, …. Reterry, …… that “heat balance” thingy among the totality of the different atmospheric gases in any given volume of the atmosphere ….. is either the result of your miseducation or a figment of your imagination, take your pick.
Thermal energy can not be confined ….. which would be a prerequisite for/to obtaining a “heat balance”. Otherwise, the amount of heat being radiated must equal the amount of heat being absorbed for a system to maintain a “heat balance”.
And because of the great distances between individual gas molecules in the atmosphere, all of said radiated heat energy will eventually be transferred into the void of outer space. 395 ppm of CO2 means there is only 395 molecules of CO2 for every 1,000,000 molecules of all gases. Thus said heat energy is more likely NOT TO BE absorbed by a CO2 molecule than it is to being absobed by one. And thus the reason that desert areas of extremely low humidity .... cool down really quickly .... when the solar energy input ceases at the end of each day.
AH SO, the same ole, same ole CYA …. by demanding a citation be posted …. that will meet your approval, ...huh.
My logics are reasonable and my deductions are intelligent …. and your implications they are not is a “cop out” on your part.
Insofar as heat balance goes, the Earth is for sure an isolated system. It is almost closed with regard to mass as well. The existence of transport (winds, currents, lava flows, rivers, etc) just shows how the equilibrium is established, but you can be picky and say that the weather systems are a part of a steady state transport that seeks to establish an equilibrium. Over small length scales portions of the environment are pretty close to a local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), and for a few cc of air at sea level that LTE is very well established. Like it or not this LTE is the basis for all hydrodynamic or fluid models of what happens to the elements of our "weather".
Your errors in thinking arise because you want to just bandy about all these numbers without discussing a clear framework of relationships among them. You appear interested in quantitative assertions, but you don't organize or even cite the relationships that can provide such answers. So, again, cite me some refereed literature that does that job if you can't, or won't.
Reterry, conversing with you is more frustrating than trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. You must have learned early in life to “Head for the roundhouse because they can’t corner you there”. If you are not already then you best get into being a political spokesperson or you are going to miss your “calling”.
Reterry, you have not discredited or disproven any of my claims of “fact”, yet I have negated every one of yours. Stick to the “subject” and quit introducing new “tripe n’ piffle” with each new posting in your attempts to “change the subject” to one that is more favorable at supporting your claims and beliefs. Yes, “Tripe n’ piffle” such as your latest posting, to wit:
“Yes”, and our Solar System is for sure an isolated system and it is almost closed with regard to mass as well. And I almost got Apple Pie and ice cream last night ….. but I didn’t.
And “NO”, Reterry, those transport systems you mentioned are the result of different, unrelated physical forces and have nothing whatsoever to do with any “balancing act”.
Reterry, “pretty close” only counts for “points” when playing the game of Horseshoes but has absolutely no use or application in the game of Science. And “HA”, your LTE is also very well established in highly partisan Democrat voting precincts. The WV Legislature has been in Democrat controlled Political equilibrium for the past 80 years.
Well “SURPRISE”, …… “SURPRISE”, ….. now we all know for sure why the climate, weather and surface temperature predictions generated by James Hansen’s Climate Modeling Programs are utterly FUBAR and are as useful as used toiletpaper.
My errors, huh? Reterry, you are the one that persists in introducing a new topic via your “Tripe n’ piffle” in order to evade any further discussion of a previously introduced topic.
Reterry, just what the ell do you think you are going to resolve by “discussing a clear framework of relationships among” said “numbers” …… before you have determined said “numbers” are actual and/or factual?
“HA”, are you also advocating “discussing a clear framework of relationships among” the different colored Flying Spaghetti Monsters?
Now Reterry, that was an emotionally prompted disingenuous accusation, ….. to soothe your bruised ego, I assume.
Now I was quite specific in providing both relationships and answers to my “quantitative assertions” that the proponents of “CO2 causing AGW” REFUSE to include the “warming” effect contributed by non-cloud H2O vapor (humidity) in their mathematical calculations, their computer models, their commentary on surface temperatures or their claimed causes of AGW.
And I cited you some referenced literature in Post #250.4 via this hyper link, to wit: from a Degreed "AGW" biased dude clearly proves … which you IGNORED and opted for another “subject change” comment.
And as per your request, below are 4 more referenced literature links which I will be surprised if you don’t ignore them also.
Debunking the CO2 Positive Feedback Myth - Leonard Weinstein, ScD
The graph that fooled the world
Global Warming: The Orgin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Truths and Myths bout Carbon Dioxide, Scientific Consensus, and Climate Models
Sorry, no sale. All that crap is just so much howling from the denier echo chamber... definitely a closed system!
Do you even know what refereed literature looks like?
I know what a referred ballgame looks like, ...... but only when I am watching it.
Does that qualify me with sufficient experience to get a referring job working in a library or bookstore?
And ps, .... me thinks your expertise is limited to knowing what a "closed mind" is ........ and void of what a "closed system" is.
2 weeks ago, while making a presentation of my book about Global warming ("Al-Battani Shield: Counteracting Global Warming - A New Approach") before the members of Fort Worth Astronomical Society (an eclectic but basically a very conservative group), I put the subject to vote. I asked the members to vote with a show of hands, how many believed that global warming was occcurring, about 30 riased their hands. I then asked how many believed the humans were - through their industrial and other activities - at least partly responsible for the climate change and votee was about 25 (with about five against human culpability). When I asked if there were any who didn't know or didn't care, there was not a single hand going up.
This is very instructive. I also believe that we do not have time to meaningfully reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels theough measures such as 'Cap and Trade' (the approach that Al Gore, James Hansen and 350.org would recommend). My solution (as detailed in the book) of creating an artificial, permanent, total eclipse of the Sun by placement of a bsarrier ("Al-Battani Shield") in a cum sol trajectory is eminently doable, reasonably affordable, intrinsically devoid of any unforseen consequences and not likely to excite right wing push back. Why not give it a consideration?
There is no such thing as global warming just like the claim that smoking causes cancer has never been proven.
So if you are a Conservative please take up smoking and laugh at all them commie libbies.
If you're worried about methane and other greenhouse gasses, try eating more vegan meals.I'm a member of PETA and I urge people to eat healthy vegan foods for both ethical and environmental reasons. According to my friends at PETA, animal agriculture is one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide and the single largest source of both nitrous oxide and methane, which are 25 and 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, respectively.
According to Worldwatch Institute President Robert Engelman, the "world's supersized appetite for meat" is one of the main reasons why greenhouse-gas emissions are still increasing rapidly.
When the Environmental Working Group calculated the environmental impact of 20 conventionally grown foods, they found that 59.6 pounds of carbon dioxide and methane are produced for every 2.2 pounds of beef eaten.
If we are to combat climate change, pollution, and deforestation, and conserve water, fossil fuels, and other resources, then we must eat vegan foods rather than meat, eggs, and dairy products. See www.PETA.org for free vegan recipes and product suggestions. This is something simple we can all do to help the environment.
Two hundred fifty million years ago (only about six percent of the age of the earth) there was a mass extinction event called the End Permian.
This event made extinct around 90% of all of the species then living. So, it surely must have killed at least 99% of all individual organisms.
The most probable cause?
Runaway global warming, leading to destabilization of the methane hydrates, and a methane catastrophe. Methane adds a third major greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, after water vapor and carbon dioxide.
Such methane catastrophes seem to occur with some regularity, and they are a consistent theory that explains most mass extinction events. The methane hydrates build up during periods of stability, but if volcanic activity or some other trigger pushes too much global warming too fast, a methane catastrophe can result, apparently.
This could be the start of a methane catastrophe which could kill all life on earth, and tip the climate system over into a runaway state, with the final result being an atmosphere resembling that of Venus.
It almost happened 250 million years ago- only six percent or so of the age of the earth. Methane producing bacteria living on the floors of the oceans have been around for billions of years.
It may be too late to stop it, but we definitely need to try. We need a World War II scale effort, and we need to go "carbon negative" and put all the carbon we can back underground as soon as possible.
Step one- nationalize the oil corporations, including ExxonMobil. Just seize them, and seize the assets of the major banks like JPMorgan Chase built on oil profits. Use the wealth to try to stop a methane catastrophe.
And pray it's not too late.
Oh, by the way-
The sun is hotter now.
According to the standard model of stellar evolution, our sun is maybe two percent hotter than it was during the End Permian, the most severe previous mass extinction.
According to Hansen, that's equivalent to maybe 1000 ppm of CO2. We're at 390 ppm, right now.
The End Permian is known as "the Great Dying" by the way. For millions of years after that, the fossil record shows almost no life. No fossils, no microfossils, no pollen- no soils. Isolated pockets of life must have survived, though, because about ten percent of species did survive.
This is the start of the next major mass extinction event, and it's going to be a whopper. The pulse of heat we have injected into the oceans is only now starting to creep into the hydrates.
And it is all our fault. Lying Republicans and Tea Party idiots who are the puppets of the Koch Brothers are only slightly more to blame than the rest of us. Obama needs to declare a state of emergency, and seize the oil corporations, the coal fired power plants, and the major banks built with fossil fuel profits. Only then will we see any major progress.
Global Warming and Climate Change is slowing becoming a religion. Questioning the data and the alarmist strategy for converting the unsure and galvanizing the true believers is not denying, it is in fact science looking for facts. Not far in the past, and even today there are remnants of it, the churches would blame God for unusual events. We have seen clear evidence that data was manipulated so the trend could be exaggerated. In science, real science, you do not manipulate your data to get the outcome you want. This does not mean there is not a trend, it does mean someone is cheating and it destroys the credibility of much research. Lastly, for those of you who are not very old, the air quality in the USA has improved dramatically since the 70's and 80's. Your best effort now would be to clean up China and India as it would produce far greater results than anything else you do in the USA. Most don't want the truth they want to appease their God.
BS. Please provide link to back this up.
AGW is real and not up for debate.