LithiaWx

I wonder if we may see the same types of hotspots popping up in the Dakotas with the boom up there.

We will be happy to have you....we don't post as much as the other side of the Apps but things should pick up in the next month or so.

Be great to have your posts Marietta, have a great week!

That's amazing Stovepipe.  I really want to plant some veggies next year.  ME and my girlfriend had quite a few plants and flowers this year but we stayed away from the edibles.  I live in the city, in a townhome so it's difficult to find the space and privacy to garden like that.  Anyways, bravo sir.

Hi there,

The longer I think about the subject of which sub-forum best fits NW GA the more I think my weather is more like N AL, TN than NC and SC.  I understand there isn't much that can be done about being in-between two sub-forums. Just my two cents, really thinking I will be posting here more than the SE forum. 

The wife and I at a Company Dinner/area Staff Meeting a couple months back.

Dude nice beard! When did you grow that thing?

Burger, consider adding examples of the different storms. Not maps but like march 1993 miller a. March 09' ULL.

She's beautiful. I know you're proud of her.

Yes sir. She has changed my life. Knowing no matter what life brings me she will always be my daughter is a wonderful feeling.

What a beautiful baby!

Is she the one on the left?

She's adorable!

Great Picture!!! Merry Christmas!

Thank you so much guys! Burns I knew that comment would come should have known it would be you lol

Hey guys! Here is a picute of my 10 week old daughter. Her first Christmas!

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

This is from the article you cited. Why do you keep asking questions you have already answered?

The question was for the met I responded to. I wanted to know when he felt like it could occur.

Just a bit of alliterative humor. Though it is something that is possible, given the unique combination of warming temperatures with sediments on a shallow shelf becoming unstable...

According to some other posters in this thread, nothing about this is funny. When do you think a catastrophic climatic calamity could commence wrt CH4?

The language used is for dramatic effect and exposes the OP for the alarmist he is. It's fine with me, I don't buy into the CH4 alarmism, the thread title discredits the concern to many folks and it's chalked up to alarmism. So I hope the title stays I just like pointing out how absurd it is and how statements like that hurt the cause of people concerned about CH4.

lol at BB getting banned.

In the context of methane release - yes. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I understand. You moved the goalposts when you realized how ridiculous the statement was.

your a pretty abrasive guy for posting that you saw MYI growth where there was none. You still haven't posted how the MYI is growing.

You cliamed there were Countless papers on cryosat2. You posted ZERO of them.

You completely dismissed out right methane leaking through ice cracks and again you were wrong.

Is ironic that your in this thread grilling these guys on this when you continue to not back up

the claims you make.

You may want to be more fair

You're

Is English not your native language? I don't see any other way you can so wildly misconstrue the term "large portion" - it is a relative quantity, not an absolute quantity. For example, if I eat a half pound of BBQ brisket, I've eaten a large portion even though the cow it came from weighed about half a ton. Similarly, if I eat an entire Snickers bar I have eaten a large portion of chocolate. The meaning of the term has to be taken from the context it is used in.

As I explained in my earlier post, I meant 'large portion' as being enough CH4 to have serious climate effects.. What that amount would be depends on a number or factors, including rate of release, but all research I've seen indicates that the release of even a small percentage of the vast reservoir of CH4 locked up in permafrost and methane hydrates would be very serious. There have been ample links to peer-reviewed research supporting that concern.

So keep on playing your semantic games - it is clear to anyone who speaks English that you're just being foolish.

I see so now a small percentage equals "a large portion"

lol @ doing the same thing in your reply that you pretended to be mad about

It's been stated in the monstrosity of a thread that we are talking about a timescale of thousands of years not a 100 years for a "large portion" to be released. The accepted numbers are 50Gt of the 1,400Gt is subject to sudden release. The amount of warming that would be necessary for "a large portion" to be released would take many centuries to millenniums. Wake me up when the world is ending when a catastrophic climatic calamity commences.

http://www.cosis.net...008-A-01526.pdf

Please back this statement up with some facts, or peer reviewed papers. And who said that the majority of the arctic methane was going to be released? An abrupt 1% release would be devastating. S&S have stated that a 50GT release is possible. That would look like this:

Anthropogenic warming is melting permafrost on land and under the ESAS seabed and releasing unprecedented amounts of CH4 to the atmosphere - in essence we are opening the spigots on massive CH4 reservoirs with no confidence we can slow of stop future CH4 releases. By all estimates I've seen there is enough CH4 in these reservoirs to cause devestating climate change if a large portion is released over the next century. Remember, CH4 is many times more potent as a GHG than CO2 is.

This is not alarmism - it is simply alarming. And the discussion of what is happening and what the consequences may be is a perfect topic for this forum. If the discussion of today's reality and possible future scenarios bothers you for some reason then don't read the thread.

^

The asinine statement that started the debate. Why talk about "a large portion" being released in the next 100 years if it's not a possibility? Answer = alarmism. You guys can enjoy your circle jerk of doom and gloom about the end of the world.

This is a joke thread. If you wanted to have a serious debate about methane you shouldn't have started the way you did.

You are the only person on this thread, or any other thread, who has used the terms "most" or "majority" in reference to the emission of arctic methane. If you had actually read any of the papers that have been referenced you could have learned that release of even a small percentage (much less than half) of the methane reservoir will have serious climate impact.

By continuing your rant you are making yourself look silly and are trashing what little credibility you have.

"Large Portion" isn't any different.... You were the first to use the verbiage.

Anthropogenic warming is melting permafrost on land and under the ESAS seabed and releasing unprecedented amounts of CH4 to the atmosphere - in essence we are opening the spigots on massive CH4 reservoirs with no confidence we can slow of stop future CH4 releases. By all estimates I've seen there is enough CH4 in these reservoirs to cause devestating climate change if a large portion is released over the next century. Remember, CH4 is many times more potent as a GHG than CO2 is.

This is not alarmism - it is simply alarming. And the discussion of what is happening and what the consequences may be is a perfect topic for this forum. If the discussion of today's reality and possible future scenarios bothers you for some reason then don't read the thread.

again, nothing suggests that a "large portion" (did I get it right this time?) is in danger of being released in the next 100 years. You shouldn't have suggested such a thing if you weren't willing to take the heat for such a ridiculous statement. Why would you talk about a "large portion" being released in the next 100 years if it's accepted that it won't happen?

Is that enough or do you want more?

You haven't showed me what I asked for. You don't read very well. I'll ask again.

I wasn't talking about a minority amount and neither was the guy's post I was originally responding to. So the answer appears to be there is not peer reviewed papers that suggest a majority of the methane in the ESAS is in danger of being released in the next 100 years.

I hear you Rusty... I just keep going back to the thread title that not many seem to object to.

catastrophic climatic calamity could commence.

catastrophic climatic calamity? really?

To say this is a joke or should not be taken seriously is your opinion, but it is not shared by those charged with those investigating this phenomenon. This sort of thing can happen and has likely happened before in the paleo record.

We don't know what is going to happen, but this methane time bomb is definitely worthy of serious concern, especially if human activities raise arctic temps several degrees above what has naturally occurred for potentially many millions of years.

Peer reviewed papers please.

Some of you (not you in particular) scream about the peer review process. You won't find serious scientists who believe the ESAS is on the verge of a catastrophic methane release. We are thousands of years away from such an event if it ever does happen.

MauMau tactics of the worst kind.

I like the shunning, though.

Were you Cotton Mather in a previous life?

What's funny is your little followers won't disown you for this egregious error. That just goes to show you how terrible even the sheep that follow you are.

You should be ashamed to pretend that the death toll of 9/11 is not trivial compared to the one we will bear from AGW.

Good Godwin!

shameful.... Terrorism and the methane in the ESAS are not comparable. You should be called out and shunned for this terrible judgement.

The thing is that even a minority of the available methane would still be sufficient to cause a significant climate impact. And Wx Rusty is right about the short term CH4 being in tandem with the long term conversion to CO2.

The S&S and related papers are fairly suggestive of instability, aren't they?

Over time more journal papers will likely be coming out, as it takes time to publish. So this is a nuanced discussion of risk assessment to be sure.

I wasn't talking about a minority amount and neither was the guy's post I was originally responding to. So the answer appears to be there is not peer reviewed papers that suggest a majority of the methane in the ESAS is in danger of being released in the next 100 years.

OK, but one threat is a lot bigger in overall magnitude than the other.

How many planes would have to be hijacked and flown into buildings per year to generate the same aggregate death toll that will be generated by 115 degree heat waves lasting 3 weeks at a time or more (to mention only one of the better characterized risks of AGW)?

That will be happening pretty soon at the rate we're going, methane or no methane.

What we're doing now (nothing) is a hell of a lot WORSE for our collective safety than materially aiding terrorists.

You should be ashamed to compare methane release to one of the biggest tragedy's in American history, 9/11.