Jump to content

skierinvermont

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,101

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by skierinvermont

  1. skierinvermont
    I don't think you understood him. He's saying since so much oil seeps NATURALLY it doesn't matter when humans spill a few million gallons. I'm not sure if he even read his own links though. The second one says that plastics take forever to degrade in the oceans and plastics building up in the ocean are major environmental problem...
  2. skierinvermont
    Even if every other natural factor aligned for cooling we'd stay well above pre-industrial temperatures. The only exception would maybe be a temporary 5-10 year cold spell by a 1 in 10,000+ year volcanic eruption. Even if the earth's axis and orbit aligned for an ice age, we probably wouldn't cool very much if CO2 were pegged @400ppm. Much of the cooling in ice ages comes from a declining CO2 concentration feedback loop and without it, the cooling would be much less. It might just cause us to stop warming instead of continuing to warm. You have to understand that even if CO2 stopped rising, the earth is still gaining unimaginable quantities of thermal energy every second and surface temperatures would continue to rise for some decades (until surface temperatures are high enough that outgoing LW radiation is in balance with incoming SW radiation). But if the factors aligned strongly enough, we probably would see some cooling. But nothing like any ice age. I don't think there has ever been an ice age with CO2 at 400ppm.
  3. skierinvermont
    While science has not, and probably will not ever, precisely pin down GHG contribution. It is very likely between 75-125%. The earth would likely have cooled due to human aerosol pollution which is literally dimming the sun (this is why some areas with high levels of pollution have seen less warming). GHG warming has more than countered this cooling and created the observed warming. The sun has had a minimal effect since the sun has always had a minimal effect and is currently in a weak period of solar output. We also know that every doubling of CO2 produces 1.1C of surface warming. The uncertainty is in the feed-backs, not CO2. The feed-backs are very likely positive. We should have seen .5C of warming based on CO2 alone without feedbacks. With feedbacks, probably .8-1.5C. The reason we have seen on the low end of that is aerosol pollution and the fact that the earth is still warming (even if we stopped emitting CO2 the earth would warm significantly more).
  4. skierinvermont
    No it's not rare. The area around the north pole has been like soup for most of the last decade in August and early September.
  5. skierinvermont
    As ORH said, way too early to say if minimum will be early or not. And technically temperatures are only anomalously cold compared to very recent history. Specifically, they are cooler than most of the last decade, similar to the 1981-2010 mean, and way above the 20th century average.
  6. skierinvermont
    Oh I know the arctic deep hasn't warmed ever. And it still hasn't. 300-400m is not the arctic deep. What's with all the apples to oranges comparisons today? Do you have any evidence that large warming influxes have not occurred at 300-400m before? I highly doubt AGW is responsible for a 6-7C anomaly at 300m deep. Sounds more like an ocean current thing. But if you have any evidence to the contrary that would be much appreciated. And I would still like the link to the lovely images you have been providing us, if you don't mind.
  7. skierinvermont
    Also the fact that we're talking about anomalies of 5C+ suggests to me that we're talking more about a naturally occurring event than AGW. The globe hasn't warmed 5C in the last 4 years. Even the arctic hasn't warmed anywhere near 5C in the last 4 years.
  8. skierinvermont
    So all you've shown is that destabilizing water temps are at worst possibly brushing up against the very edge of the continental shelf - a negligible surface area. You haven't shown warming over the continental shelf, and you haven't shown warming at the sea floor where the ocean is deeper than 300-400m.
  9. skierinvermont
    Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the plumes of methane coming from the ESB and Laptev from depths of less than 300m. Again all your maps show pretty cool water along the edges where the water would actually be in reasonably close proximity to the sea floor.
  10. skierinvermont
    The maps you posted don't cover any of the continental shelves. Maybe a little bit of the CA, but the waters off the CA are 500m+ deep and the warming at 300 and 400m is fairly moderate. How about posting some 200m maps that include the continental shelves or providing us the link so we can check ourselves? (Third time I've asked!)
  11. skierinvermont
    I'm glad you're finally on board Vergent and reading my posts. Can you offer some proof for these two claims? Can you provide a link for the maps you are using or provide maps for the 100m and 200m depths which I assume cover the ESB and Laptev? (the 300 and 400m ones do not since the ESB and Laptev are barely 300m deep, less in some places). The maps you use look cold around the edges where the ocean is shallower. It's possible that the stratification and currents of the arctic ocean keep the warm Atlantic influxes separate from the waters of the ESB and Laptev, or that the water cools off enough before reaching there. So show us some evidence of warming in those areas.
  12. skierinvermont
    Lol somebody gets it! Too bad Vergent is too busy insulting me and pretending to be smart to use his brain and read.
  13. skierinvermont
    Your point was that warming was going to cause methane release. The area of warming you showed was at 300m and 400m but the depth of the ocean in that same area is 3000m. That means that the warming is 2600-2700m from the bottom of the ocean. How can warming 2700m above the ocean floor causing methane release on the ocean floor?
  14. skierinvermont
    No, the area that he posted with the big warming is 3000m deep. Look at a map. I'd like to see what temperatures are in the east siberian where it actually is shallow.
  15. skierinvermont
    Fortunately the area of the ocean that shows warming is 3000m deep so there are another 2700m to go.
  16. skierinvermont
    Then show us the statistical studies documenting an increase in specific destructive events. There is no conclusive evidence of an increase in floods tornadoes hurricanes or strong storms. The only specific events to change is an increase in heatwaves and a decrease in severe cold.
  17. skierinvermont
    1. Much higher? It appears to me that arctic as well as global concentrations have continued to rise at a very slow rate as they have for the last 5 years. Much much slower than they were rising for most of the last 80 years. And below predicted. Methane has risen 1000ppb over the last 100 years but suddenly the blogosphere is freaking out over a 10ppb increase. 2. My sole point was that the AIRS scale is fine and doesn't need to be changed as you suggested based off an inappropriate combination of surface and 400mb CH4 concentration data. 3. Are you seriously saying the Kara is ice free due to methane being a few ppb higher than last year? What a joke. Have you never heard of weather? or the fact that the globe and arctic have been rising for 100 years due primarily to CO2? 4. Nobody ever said that CH4 or CO2 are EXACTLY evenly distributed. Both gases have some very small local variation. CH4 has risen 1000ppb over the last 100 years.. which dwarfs any local variation.
  18. skierinvermont
    The line of best fit for below is ~1/ppb/yr. Barrow AK != the entire arctic.
  19. skierinvermont
    Funny this massive new fascination with arctic methane when the rate of increase in the arctic over recent years at 1ppb is much less than the increase in the Antarctic at 6ppb. Why is everyone suddenly fixated with this 1ppb increase in the arctic and not the 6ppb/yr increase in the Antarctic? Because in the Antarctic there is no potential for sudden catastrophic methane release. And thus no opportunity for alarmist headlines.
  20. skierinvermont
    AIRS is at 400mb and Barrow is on the surface where CH4 concentrations are higher.
  21. skierinvermont
    Then you ignore the basic physics of GHGs which dictate that any local variation in CH4 concentrations are far too tiny to have a significantly different temperature impact. The local variation in CH4 concentrations are a small fraction of the 1000ppb increase in CH4 concentrations that have occurred globally which themselves cumulatively only represent a small fraction of the total GHG radiative forcing of the last century. The radiative forcing of CH4 is not significantly different in the arctic as anywhere else.
  22. skierinvermont
    That graph shows methane increasing at 1ppb/year. Let's make the radical assumption of DOUBLING that to 2/ppb year. Arctic methane concentrations will only be 2050ppb in the year 2100... far below any IPCC projection. What we are witnessing are TINY TINY TINY methane increases that don't even come close to corroborating IPCC projections.. never mind the doomsday scenarios being claimed by alarmists. Global methane concentrations remain far below IPCC projections and are increasing at a slower rate than IPCC projections.
  23. skierinvermont
    Your usage of the phrase "watts per year" tells me you do not know what the term watt means. A watt is a unit of power not energy.
  24. skierinvermont
    Most people don't understand the complexity and fragility of nature. There are countless examples of unintended consequences.
  25. skierinvermont
    The only thing alarming here is the willful ignoring of science. The science provides these reasons NOT to be alarmed: 1. The new large plumes found are in previously unexplored areas and so there is little basis to conclude that these plumes are a new phenomenon. 2. The new large plumes were found in deeper water farther offshore than that previously explored. This deep water would take longer to respond to recent agw and it should be the shallow water which responds first. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that these deep water plumes are responding to an old long term warming. This conclusion is strengthened by #3. 3. All modeling studies i am aware of conclude that it will take hundreds of years for arctic methane release to occur and that a large increase in methane concentration this century is improbable. 4. Arctic methane release this decade has been insufficient to raise regional methane concentration seriously, nevermind globally. 5. The long term warming of the last 10k years is both a sufficient explanation for these plumes and by far the most probable explanation according to modeling.
×
×
  • Create New...