skierinvermont
-
Posts
13,024 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!)
-
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.
-
Lol somebody gets it! Too bad Vergent is too busy insulting me and pretending to be smart to use his brain and read.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Fortunately the area of the ocean that shows warming is 3000m deep so there are another 2700m to go.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The line of best fit for below is ~1/ppb/yr. Barrow AK != the entire arctic.
-
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.
-
AIRS is at 400mb and Barrow is on the surface where CH4 concentrations are higher.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Most people don't understand the complexity and fragility of nature. There are countless examples of unintended consequences.
-
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.
-
If it did represent an uptick due to agw that would be concerning but there isn't any evidence of that. The evidence is that this is a normal natural uptick and that the vaste majority of the 3200 gt is stable. This idea that 3200 gt is about to explode is nonsense. "ready" in this case means theoretically releasable given enough warming and especially TIME.
-
All you are doing is taking the word ready out of context.
-
Most of those 3200GT is buried deep in the arctic and would take 1000s of years to be released, if ever. All you are doing is looking at that 3200GT number and then in wishful ignorance assuming that this will suddenly belch from deep under the surface into the atmosphere. You are wishcasting and making wild assumptions with absolutely zero basis in fact or physics. The RC author assumes a 100-fold increase in methane emissions and finds that even in this bizarre and highly improbable worst case scenario which contradicts all modeling and observation to date, CH4 is still only comparable to CO2 and the effect is much more short-lived.
-
"so far there has not been strong evidence of agw enhanced methane release." But certain posters here will no doubt ignore this.
-
I love how some of you were so sure that the readings were accurate and even after NOAA said they are not some are still insisting they are. This is the opposite of agw denial ism.