Ed Caryl Responds To Latest Warmist Gaseous End-Of-World Scare Scenario

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Methane
By Ed Caryl

I wish to thank the commenter styling himself SpaceScience for drawing our attention to the article at Nature GeoScience titled Atmospheric observations of Arctic Ocean methane emissions up to 82° north.

The comment was in response to my comment pointing to an article stating that the Arctic was a net sink for methane.

The problem with both articles is that they both bow to the “Group Think” prevalent in the climate research community. Both articles clearly assume that global warming is a problem that is, or will, exacerbate methane release in the polar regions, leading to catastrophe. Each approaches the science as if unprecedented global warming were a proven fact, where, as we know, no additional warming has occurred in the last decade and a half, and previous warm periods within the last millennium have exceeded the current one.

The article that this author cited, All About Frozen Ground, by Kevin Schaefer of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, at least admitted that the Arctic is a net sink for methane, then warns that if the permafrost melts, this will release methane that will increase global warming. The logical disconnect is not addressed. Why is the Arctic a net sink? Because warming and additional CO2 is increasing biological activity, the plants growing in the tundra are growing faster and bigger, and the tree line is moving northward, storing additional carbon. There is no explanation of when or how this process might reverse.

The article cited by SpaceScience (behind a paywall) has only the abstract available, but which begins with the word “Uncertainty.”

Uncertainty in the future atmospheric burden of methane, a potent greenhouse gas1, represents an important challenge to the development of realistic climate projections. The Arctic is home to large reservoirs of methane, in the form of permafrost soils and methane hydrates2, which are vulnerable to destabilization in a warming climate. Furthermore, methane is produced in the surface ocean3 and the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean are supersaturated with respect to methane4, 5. However, the fate of this oceanic methane is uncertain.”

The reader will immediately notice all the necessary words that the climate community uses to insure publication, like: “potent greenhouse gas, realistic climate projections,” and “vulnerable to destabilization,” You will also notice all the fudge-factor words like “challenge” and “uncertain,” that keep these papers from being quickly recognized as misleading. The researchers find that methane is released only from open water in the Arctic; ice puts a lid on it. The implication is that with the loss of ice there will be more methane. This author would like to point out that currents in the Arctic constantly recycle all the water into and out of the Arctic, so that within just 3 to 5 years, all the water finds itself without a lid. They would always find methane! There is no methane in the surface waters that is permanently trapped, so there can’t be any additional methane in the long run. This is not to mention that the ice cycle is currently recovering in the Arctic.

GroupThink is a huge problem in climate science. It colors every paper published. Well researched facts are presented in such a way that they support the preconceived idea that AGW is real with a big C in front of it, when they are just facts that have no relationship to that idea. This is proved time after time in paper after paper by all the “fudge” words that are needed to make the facts fit the premise. This problem makes separating the wheat from the chaff in the climate field very difficult. I for one will be very  happy to see the premise collapse.

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

37 responses to “Ed Caryl Responds To Latest Warmist Gaseous End-Of-World Scare Scenario”

  1. DirkH

    Interesting. I never noticed the Arctis is a net carbon sink (not that I care much). And it’s very well buried in the web page about Kevin, the Arctic Alarmist. PR agencies at work.

    Defund them all, send them to the unemployment office and help them find productive labor. Yes, this is a threat!

  2. SpaceSciene

    Natalia Shakhova et al.,

    Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, Science 327, 1246 (2010);

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.full.pdf

    and references therein…..

  3. SpaceSciene

    see also :

    Notz and Marotzke, Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L08502, 6 PP., 2012
    doi:10.1029/2012GL051094

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051094.shtml

  4. cementafriend

    Ed, Could you please let us know the details of reference 1 . Methane is not a powerful greenhouse gas. One should look at the wavelength spectrum. (click on my name to get a look at the spectrum). The absorption occurs only in a single narrow wavelength which is entirely overlaped by water vapor. The radiation absorption is about one tenth of that of CO2 which in turn is about one tenth of H2O (gas). The clouds are most powerful radiation absorbing and emitting factor in the atmospere. No body really understands clouds but it is thought that clouds affect in coming radiation by around 63% and a small change in cloud cover can change the heat absorbed by oceans which in turn can have a minor affect on near surface atmospheric temperatures. The radiation absorption of CO2 is insignificant while that of methane is for all practical purposes zero.
    Both papers are a waste of research dollars.

    1. SpaceScience

      Shindell et al. , Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions,

      Science 30 October 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/672.full.pdf

      1. Ed Caryl

        If you have read my articles here, you have seen that I attribute the arctic warming to black carbon and sulfate emissions. These emissions have fooled many researchers into believing the CO2 meme.

        1. SpaceScience
    2. Ed Caryl

      I know that. The author of reference 1 doesn’t know that.

      1. Ed Caryl

        That was for Cementafriend.

    3. Ed Caryl

      Cementafriend,
      Sorry I missed your question until now.
      1. Methane does not have a wide absorption band, but in the Arctic it is very dry in winter, so in that band, at the concentrations coming from Norilsk, it becomes the dominant greenhouse gas.

  5. Jeremy Poynton

    Slightly confused.

    Statement 1. “no additional warming has occurred in the last decade and a half,
    …………………..^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    and previous warm periods within the last millennium have exceeded the current one.”

    Statement 2. “Because warming and additional CO2 is increasing biological
    ……………………………….^^^^^^
    activity, the plants growing in the tundra are growing faster and bigger, and the tree line is moving northward, storing additional carbon. ”

    Contradictory, it seems to me. Care to clarify? Great blog by the way, a daily visit for me.

    But the warming has stopped y

    1. Ed Caryl

      Jeremy,
      1. Since the El Niño of 1998 there has been no additional warming.
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2012-0-30c/
      The Medieval Warm period has been well documented. Read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales or Beowulf. Or there are also many proxy reconstructions that clearly show it.
      2. We have been in a relatively warm period since about 1980. It is now beginning to cool. All part of a natural cycle. Loose the idea CO2 is driving temperature. But CO2 IS a plant food. The Arctic willows that were 3 cm tall winding among the rocks in the 1950’s are now a meter tall.

      1. Gilbert

        I noted this back on the 24th: Then again, if the latest stuff on meahtne emmissions from the Arctic are true, then I suppose it doesn’t matter anymore, its over, for at least 5 billion plus people by 2100 (inc all of Australia). If it is true then we might as well carry on the party, burn more coal or whatever, as it is all irrelevant now, as the postive feedback mechanisms take over they will dwarf anything we can do.Then again, there is maybe one small chance, full scale nuclear war. The dust and smoke would cool the Earth for a couple of years, maybe enough to trigger off a new ice age .. maybe. At least the cooling effect would drop temperatures enough to stop the positive feedback systems and with pretty much everyone in the US, Canada, Europe, Russia all dead then man made emissions would drop enough. Best option for Australia.So to fix global warming, vote McCain. If this is the start of the positive feedback mechanisms cutting in, then we really are in big trouble. Everything seems to be happening faster than the worst case’ scenarios in the late 90 s and early 2000 s predicted.I downloaded a lot of the model prediction and historical data from the IPCC a while ago and verified for myself that we seem to be on the worst case track (I am a sceptic after all).A little background that is not so well publicised. There are significant surface temperature movements from year to year from many (not entirely understood) causes. El Nino/La Nina is one for example, we are in a cool period in the Southern Hemisphere.But, more GGs still mean more energy staying on the Earth. What happens is the surface temps may drop, but that energy has to go somewhere else (ya canna defy the laws of physics captain).Basically it goes deeper underwater, when these cycles reverse then that energy comes back to the surface up again. Plus we really have no idea what impacts heating deep water will have. Perhaps it is accelerating deep water meahtne release?So what we are seeing at the moment is just heat movement, not any real cooling as some climate sceptics’ claim (they give us real ones a bad name). When these cycles reverse it is not going to be very pleasant, just wait for more record temperature summers and winters soon.PS a good test to see if it is too late, all the best climate scientists disappear to places like New Zealand or the Scottish Highlands. Hang on a second, let’s try. I’ll just dial Jim Hanson . he’s gone where???

  6. SpaceScience

    Natalia Shakhova et al.,

    Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, Science 327, 1246 (2010);

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.full.pdf

    and references therein…..

    1. Ed Caryl

      See CementaFriend above. Also, this venting happens for about two months a year. Much of the literature says that methane is at least as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, but if CO2 isn’t having much effect, then neither is methane.

      1. SpaceScience

        But tropospheric arctic SO2 do as you mention in your previous article ? 😉

        1. Ed Caryl

          In combination with water vapor, yes.

          1. SpaceScience

            Again, publish this for open review in

            http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/review/review_process_and_interactive_public_discussion

            If you are right, you will gain big attention or maybe a Nobel Prize ?

          2. DirkH

            How often have we heard this deriding remark – “If you had any brains you would publish in one of OUR pal-reviewed journals” – you can stick that up your -snip.

          3. Ed Caryl

            LOL

          4. DirkH

            Sorry, heard it one too many times. Next he’ll compare CAGW science to the laws of gravity, wait for it. Déjà vu all over again…

          5. SpaceScience

            So in two words: you compare publications in journals like SCIENCE and NATURE etc. with all the bullshit written in WEB-Blogs ??

          6. SpaceScience

            yes i wait for it 😉

          7. DirkH

            Well, Science and Nature used to be reputable publications before the grandest scientific fraud in the history of mankind turned them into parodies of their former selfs. It would be unfair to compare skeptic blogs with their open debate to these corrupt publications.

            So no, can’t be compared.

          8. SpaceScience

            So when in your opinion Science and Nature are corrupt, what’s about all the other peer reviewed journals with open discussions of the review ??

      2. DirkH

        I think the reason that they attribute such a high GHG effectiveness to Methane is that its absorption band is not as saturated as the one of CO2 – the logarithmic nature of the “forcing”… (There’s next to no Methane at all in the atmosphere as it is converted quickly to CO2 and H2O, so no saturation)

  7. SpaceScience

    Notz and Marotzke,

    Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat,
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L08502, 6 PP., 2012

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051094.shtml

    1. Ed Caryl

      Then what is driving sea ice recovery?
      Now explain southern hemisphere sea ice.
      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/iphone.anom.antarctic.html

      1. SpaceScience
        1. Ed Caryl

          No mention there on the southern hemisphere.

          1. SpaceScience

            then compare te plots on the page for the south an for the north…

            the southern is showing no clear trend, the northern do…

            your SO2 hypothesis was for the northern hemisphere and not for the southern…

            as you know, there is also an interhemispheric gradient…

          2. Ed Caryl

            Space….
            There is no plot on the page for the Southern hemisphere.

            Here is the southern hemisphere sea ice:
            http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
            Do you see a trend?

            Not entirely. Read it again.

            Inter-hemispheric gradient? Why would that be? CO2 is the same world-wide. Hints: GHCN & GISS have more stations to adjust in the north. There are more stations with UHI problems in the north. There is more BC pollution in the north. The north is mostly land; the south is mostly ocean.

  8. John F. Hultquist

    Thanks Ed. I always learn something new from your posts. A couple of years back I found the link below (I think the date is late 1970s, 1976?), and if you have not seen it, it is worth reading. He writes during a cooling period of a time of “prior warmth” when the Canadian (latitudinal) tree line was farther north.

    http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf

    Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline
    by HARVEY NICHOLS
    ABSTRACT “From palynological studies it appears that northernmost dwarf spruces of the tundra and parts of the forest-tundra boundary may be relicts from times of prior warmth, and if klled might not regenerate. This disequilibrium may help explain the partial incongruence of modern climatic limits with the present forest edge. Seedlings established as a result of recent warming should therefore be found within the northernmost woodlands rather than in the southern tundra.

  9. SpaceScience

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

    The discussion was on sea ice extent …. as i remember….

    So if you compare processes of the northern and southern hemisphere you should be aware that for instance the latitudinal CO2 concentration is NOT! the same for the northern and southern hemisphere… as also for other trace gases like CH4 etc….

    See also

    Tans et al.

    The Latitude Gradients of CO 2 and 13 C/ 12 C

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annmeet2003/03Abstracts/TansOverview.pdf

    1. Ed Caryl

      Space,
      The north-south distribution difference is 4 ppm. That’s two years worth of increase difference. Scenario 1: If 100 ppm increase has done nothing, then 4 ppm has done 4% of nothing. Scenario 2: If 100 ppm has increased the temperature by 0.8 degrees C, then a 4 ppm difference might make the southern hemisphere 4% X 0.8 = 0.032 degrees cooler, or warming of 0.768 degrees for the southern hemisphere. Is that going to make any difference to the ice? I suggest scenario 1 is truly what is happening. There is no warming in the southern hemisphere. Now explain that.

  10. SpaceScience

    P.s. replay to Ed

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close