WeatherRusty
-
Posts
2,086 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by WeatherRusty
-
But that is what you are doing, treating the threat from AGW as if it is some kind of joke.
-
Talk about an exaggeration. Geeezzzzz Nothing less than the destruction of the human species warrants an attempt to mitigate climate disruption which we are responsible for? To your second point, I thought this was about the science and not politics. So are you saying that for you it's mostly about politics, regardless of what the science is telling us?
-
It is frozen organic material, mostly from dead plants which lived long ago during warmer periods which is buried under layers of sediment on the sea floor. This material has decayed to form simpler carbon based molecules such as methane and ethane which when mixed with water under pressure and cold conditions forms the clathrates. If the pressure or cold is reduced sufficiently the methane contained by the clathrates will be released as a gas.
-
But if these plumes are confirmed to be emergent new prolific sources that may change. We will have to wait and see how this develops and if it worsens/spreads with time.
-
It is also logarithmic (as are all greenhouse gases), but not with the same relationship as that of CO2 at their respective concentrations. At current concentrations I think CH4 would have to be doubled 12 times to create the same 3.7W/m^2 forcing as CO2 does with one doubling. It’s often noted that methane is “20x more powerful than CO2″ (see a quick google result for proof). This statement can potentially be misleading, so it is worth clarifying just what it means. The natural 33 K greenhouse effect has a much larger influence from CO2 than it does CH4. Even in the context of how the greenhouse effect is changing, CO2 is currently a much stronger forcing agent than CH4. In what sense is CH4 more powerful? This is only if we compare CO2 and CH4 side-by-side and allow the two gases to change by some incremental amount at existing background concentrations. It is only because CH4 is far less abundant in the atmosphere that adding, say, 1 ppm of CH4 will produce a larger radiative forcing than would be adding 1 ppm of CO2 to today’s atmosphere. This has nothing to do with any intrinsic property of the gas. If CO2 were far less abundant, and CH4 much more abundant, then adding a certain about of CO2 would be more effective at reducing the OLR, and we would then say “CO2 is a more powerful greenhouse gas.” From: Here That article and this one should be required reading for everyone interested in the physical basis for AGW.
-
What represents a severe spike? How long does it take to warm up the oceans which warm the air over them. With all the mixing circulations of the atmosphere and oceans this background warming is going to be relatively slow to occur. Is it even possible to warm the the entire system more than 0.2 or 0.3C per decade?
-
The modeling relied upon by the IPCC synthesis report did not include this form of methane release. The fear is that this becomes a self perpetuating issue, but is this recent finding an induction of that?
-
The methane is affecting the whole planet radiative energy balance. As a well mixed gas how could it not be? My point is, don't look for some immediate, dramatic global temp response. Some small portion of 1 watt additional energy is not going to raise temp a noticable amount in a short period of time.
-
Taco, Greenhouse gases do not directly warm the surface. It's the other way around, the surface warms the lower atmosphere. The only thing greenhouse gases do is slow down the loss of IR to space, so that the surface cools more slowly. Since less IR is escaping to space, the Earth must warm in order to re-balance the energy budget out versus in. This warming takes time, it is not instantaneous like the disruption to the energy budget is. If the surface is temporarily cooled by say a La Nina, the radiative warming will take longer to occur even as the the energy imbalance grows. If solar minimum depresses global temp 0.1C the warming will take longer to occur. Greenhouse gases directly affect the exchange of energy, the temperature response is a secondary effect.
-
LEK, The magnitude of ocean oscillations is significantly greater short term than any greenhouse warming could be. Who knows what the next few decades will bring? In the longer run the greenhouse warming will prevail because it adds energy to the system while internal variability does not. I know that does not meet your required test of AGW, but the physics is what it is.
-
The latest study ( not shown here ) places most likely climate sensitivity at 2.4C. Right in line with earlier studies, but below the 2.7C average. Notice the long tails to the right in the graphs. How can you say 4C is unlikely given these studies? Obvious not as likely as 2.7C, yet not so unlikely as to not be of concern.
-
I'll say one thing for ya...you sure bring a lot to the table! I've dealt with another fellow skeptic as prolific as you, he went by the screen name "SDBASS13A". What is it about climate change which fosters such committal to the cause?
