BethesdaWX

can you find methane in this post?

"Of course I never defy science, you're the one who has breached the scientific method, not me.

I think you'll find very shortly that your side is wrong. We'll see. "

This post is about you is it not? So, posting about you is the new topic. Is it not? So, now You making up fake references is fair game. You made the topic you. "I never defy science" is a statement of fact or falsehood.

"New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011"

This is a post you made. Back it up with a link.

I said 5 trillion times that roy spencer referenced it in this blog post that I told you to read: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/addressing-criticisms-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-at-13-century/

I haven't read the paper, thats not why I mentioned it. I can't believe you think I attempted to invent a paper, even after I directed you to the reference numerous times.

Then quit blowing methane on my topic.

By the way the "copy-paste and link it here for you." did not work.

You took it off topic, not me (accused me of making up a paper) So you did cannot find Spencer's reference on his blog? I'll post it here for all to see if you can't find it.

all I get when I google "Christy et al 2011" is:

FUNDANOMICS: The Free Market, Simplified

http://www.fundanomics.org/

Is this the Spencer you are talking about? Is this your guru?

What does he have to say about methane venting in the arctic?

Yet again, not funny. Go to my UAH thread, click the second link, and read. Roy Spencer references Christy et al 2011. If you can't do it, I'll copy-paste and link it here for you.

You dragged this off topic, not me. I don't know what he thinks about methane leaking. I don't think much of it.

Except when you make it up.

"New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011"

Which I didn't, and niether did Roy Spencer in his reference. More BS as usual.

Can it for your sake.

It's obvious alright. You may have won the political and PR battle but you have not and with not defy science and Mother Nature without paying the bill. The sad thing is, future generations and the environment will be paying the bill.

Of course I never defy science, you're the one who has breached the scientific method, not me.

I think you'll find very shortly that your side is wrong. We'll see.

Someone, please help BB with his socks.

*chirp chirp chirp*

If personal attacks are all you have in your arsenal you're not going to get far here. I learned that.

Conspiracy theorists everywhere. Can the collective of humanity actually allow themselves to be directed by these people? If so, we are doomed for sure.

Dude... "We're in deep touble, the Earth is in trouble, we're emitting too much CO2"... way to fix it is... "rich countries reduce emmisions and pay poor countries, to deal with climate change"

I'm getting too political and will put a sock in it, but come on, really obvious what is going on.

Semiletov and Shakhova..who were the source for the original article say "We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were du

e to recent climate change."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-

oarctic-methane-project-clarify-climate-concerns/

They go on later "Observations are at the core of our work now. It is no surprise to us that others monitoring global methane have not found a signal from the Siberian Arctic or increase in global emissions"

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arctic-seas-apocalypse-not/

Revkin

echoes my point from an earlier post" it’s important to get a handle on whether these are new releases, the first foretaste of some great outburst from thawing sea-bed stores of the gas, or simply a longstanding phenomenon newly

observed.”

The

Barrow readings of methane mean little. It's like taking the temperature reading of one city and claiming that represents global climate change. Of course if the Barrow readings went off the charts that would be something different. That's

not happening.

Chicken Little newspaper stories does not help climate research

Pathetic, how dare you come in here posting objective reality based analysis..

You must be oil funded, we're on the verge of catastrophe and you just sit behind your PC and discredit climate science?! This is a scientific consensus bro, legit stuff..

Thank you

Trying to understand some new data before attacking it is a sign of progress.

Now on with the conversation.

Do you find S&S's research to be alarming?

Dude just answer the question instead of spitting personal attacks.

Have a nice day.

Yes - but if little green men land on the White House lawn and demand a meeting with our leader I'll also change my position. ;-)

If your position wasn't changed by the last 15 - 20 years of warming, why would an additional period warrant a change?

Because natural forcings and response from the climate favored warming up until the 2010 El Nino, which I do not think we'll ever see a year that warm again unless a strong Nino occurs again before 2014. But heck that is an easy way to test my theory, if we warm and see new "record warm years" then I'll have been invalidated.

And if I'm invalidated I'll gladly accept that and deal with my being incorrect.

Question. If over the next 15 years the global temperature cools at approx 0.15C/decade, and the arctic ice pack begins to regain it's old form, will your opinion change? Just want to know.

I know if within 15-20 years if we've continued to warm I'll be rethinking my position.

Ahh wow, theres a part of me hates these threads

Most importantly, it was (near) Christmas snow, and would ensure the first white Christmas in

many years.

Yeah exactly, just the perfect storm in all regards. Delicately covered the trees/bushes w/ no wind at all making for the perfect postcard. Never understood the blizzard warning either, it was so still the snow fell perfectly straight.

I never understand why so many folk find snowmageddon preferable.

Definitely just felt a shake, surely hallucinating, cuz nothing reported.

you probably need some sleep!

just felt a pretty intense aftershock

Wouldn't call it "intense", but definitely made some noises.

welcome to 30 mins ago

didn't read the thread i guess.

did we have a small blurp a little while ago? PC screen Jiggled for a few seconds. Actually felt it clearly.

The only reason that I knew this was an earthquake pretty soon was that I experienced a 7.3 magnitude earthquake in Taiwan (11/14/1986). That earthquake woke me up and caused substantial, but scattered, damage across Taipei including some collapsed buildings. The shake from today's quake felt almost as strong and seemed longer than the Taiwan one.

It was definitely cool to experience this earthquake with someone else who could nerd about it at the same time. I was conducting an introductory meeting with an Earth Science teacher when it happened. I asked her as the shaking started "Does this happen often in your building?" thinking that there was a nearby passing train. Then, when the shaking continued and intensified, we both realized it was an earthquake and stood up to look around the room. That's when that jolt that we all experienced happened, with the split-second thought of "If this gets any stronger, the building will begin to collapse." After it was over, she was giddy and said that one of her "bucket list" items just got crossed off.

Yeah that jolting near the end was somewhat nerve wracking, I was definitely worried about my house for a few seconds. I am not confident my house is built well at all, certainly not built to withstand an earthquake, I've even had the random thought "what if an earthquake were to hit this area" pass through my head over the years.

My house is still standing, thats all that matters to me. The little things can be paid for by insurance (hopefully)

Just out of curiosity, can someone explain how it felt? Was it more of a roll, and then more violent shaking? Just wondering.

Well it definitely started very lightly, woke me up, then felt like it went from a Gentle back/forth shaking to more of a "jarring", which is what I assume led to most of the panic. The last 7-8 seconds are what got my heart racing a bit faster as stuff started moving a little bit and I ran my ass outside.

inspected my house for damage a few hours ago and found the garage door "frame mount" on both doors had seperated from the wall (both sides on 1, one side on the other one), not sure I can fix that by myself.

Will take photos of this epic desctruction tomorrow

I didn't feel it

Based on how folks are describing it, this map looks exactly right. The couple of spots of yellow don't surprise me: 5.9 is pretty good, and the quake was shallow, so I'd expect some hard jolts right near the epicenter.

What impresses me most about this quake is the really large coverage of felt shaking. Like I said above (or in another thread), quakes in CA don't have such wide aerial coverage like this-- except for the really bad ones, they tend to be more localized.

Pretty sure it may be the soil/terrain, if I had to guess, we have "clay" which may transfer disturbance well. I'm talking out of my azz but just is the impression I have.

Bethesda...how many downed trees, broken water mains, collapsed buildings and fatalties in your area?

Must you troll me at every given opportunity?

Eww, milk spilled all in the fridge leaked out the door too, yuck.

Can't believe how fast this thread was posted, thought I'd be the first one for sure