WeatherRusty
-
Posts
2,086 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About WeatherRusty
- Birthday 12/18/1950
Recent Profile Visitors
1,797 profile views
-
Do you really believe the proposed efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels are meant to plunge us into poverty and deprive the world of energy utilization. That's just foolishness. That people go around believing we wish to cut off our nose to spite our face is propaganda spewed by the developers of the denier play book. Don't buy it, we seek practical solutions to our problems otherwise what's the point?
-
Small percentage? Large portion? Who cares? What is the likelihood of of an extra 50Gt being released suddenly or more slowly over time? How about 1,400Gt? 50Gt over 100 years would be plenty bad enough, generating a climate forcing the equal to a doubling of CO2 and effectively doubling warming due to human activities alone.
-
Hint: 12X the atmospheric load of methane derives from 50Gt. Hypothetically, in the low likelihood of course...............
-
Just to note that a release producing 12X (see above link) the current atmospheric burden of methane would result in a radiative forcing (3.7W/m^2) the equal of a doubling of CO2 at current concentrations. Taking a doubling over pre-industrial of CO2 in the next half century for granted and a climate sensitivity equaling 3C, we would expect a 6C global increase in temperature at equilibrium.
-
Like I said, we don't know what will happen. Don't count me as one who claims a catastrophic methane release is immanent. I doubt it actually, at least in terms of a human lifetime. As I have pointed out before, the previous interglacial period 125,000 years ago appears to have attained global warmth about 1C warmer than today and did not trigger a run away methane release. The actual concern involves an increased rate of methane release from thawing permafrost and potentially the sea floor clathrates, rather than some sudden burst. Added to the anthropogenic rise in CO2, upwards of 400ppm and likely much higher, a slow but hastening arctic methane release stands to accelerate the process in a way humans would have little to no control over.
-
To say this is a joke or should not be taken seriously is your opinion, but it is not shared by those charged with those investigating this phenomenon. This sort of thing can happen and has likely happened before in the paleo record. We don't know what is going to happen, but this methane time bomb is definitely worthy of serious concern, especially if human activities raise arctic temps several degrees above what has naturally occurred for potentially many millions of years.
-
Two things to remember: 1) Any increase in the rate of methane emission from the arctic represents an uncontrolled release of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. 2) The threat is not in the short term. Long term this will add to the eventuality for atmospheric CO2 concentration to exceed 600ppm.
-
Please don't leave! You have to realize one thing. It is mainstream science which is under attack and people like Friv are frustrated by the relentless beating climate science is taking. Anger is the response. I understand you probably have a different perspective on it. It is not "extreme AGW" which is under attack, it is any and all things related to AGW in any form. To us the skeptics are the ones being totally unreasonable.
-
While methane clathrates and thawing permafrost are major concerns of climate science, I don't share the immediate concern implied by the thread title. Does there appear to be some escalation in methane release from certain areas? The evidence I have been presented indicates...maybe. This is one area of research which will require additional information to be placed into proper context. The threat is very real, but the more immediate concern is CO2 and inevitable rise in temperature it is producing. That rise in temperature is what will destabilize the locked up methane clathrates and the rotting of plant material frozen in the permafrost.
-
Lots of folks view these threads and individual posts with the hope of maybe learning something without ever posting here. The trolls need to be countered with credible information representing the side of mainstream science. Let the reader decide who makes the better case. We can't convince those who can not be won over, but if we stay true to the science maybe we can influence the inquisitive and undecided.
-
From Wikipedia: The watt, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion. Confusion of watts, watt-hours, and watts per hour The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed. For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt-hours (W•h), 0.1 kilowatt-hour, or 360 kJ. This same amount of energy would light a 40-watt bulb for 2.5 hours, or a 50-watt bulb for 2 hours. A power station would be rated in multiples of watts, but its annual energy sales would be in multiples of watt-hours. A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a steady power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour, or 3.6 MJ. Terms such as watts per hour are often misused.[17] Watts per hour properly refers to the change of power per hour. Watts per hour (W/h) might be useful to characterize the ramp-up behavior of power plants. For example, a power plant that reaches a power output of 1 MW from 0 MW in 15 minutes has a ramp-up rate of 4 MW/h. Hydroelectric power plants have a very high ramp-up rate, which makes them particularly useful in peak load and emergency situations. Major energy production or consumption is often expressed as terawatt-hours for a given period that is often a calendar year or financial year. One terawatt-hour is equal to a sustained power of approximately 114 megawatts for a period of one year. The watt second is a unit of energy, equal to the joule. One kilowatt-hour is 3,600,000 watt-seconds. The watt-second is used, for example, to rate the energy storage of flash lamps used in photography.
-
In terms of radiative forcing we have not been in a similar situation for a lot longer than just 800,000 years. More like 15,000,000 years, the last time CO2 consentrations were as high as today. It also happened to be much warmer back then with likely no permanent northern ice cap. The Antarctic ice cap had formed 34,000,000 years ago when CO2 consentration dropped below 600ppm. In terms of global temperature, current temp is about as it was 8,000 years ago when CO2 levels were no higher than 280ppm. The increasing radiative forcing of today stands to elavate mean global temp to well above that of the Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8,000 years ago. What this will do to arctic sea ice is evident from past periods of higher radiative forcing. What this will do to destabilize sea bed methane clathrates is anyone's guess. The previous interglacial period 125,000 years ago which attained a global mean temp about 1C warmer than the Holocene max apparently did not unleach a runnaway methane feedback, but what would happen if temp rises another 2C or 3C?
-
Just so people don't carry away the wrong impression, there has been no long term warming trend over the past 10k years. The natural peak temp of the Holocene period occured about 8,000 years ago and slowly declined over the following 6,000 years. The temperature began to rise about 2,000 years ago with the big jump occuring over the past 150 years which has returned temp to near what it was during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago. Yes it should take hundreds of years to destablise the deeply buried hydrates, but what about exasperating those already outgasing and those potentially already close to doing so?
-
If the recently detected activity turns out to represent an uptick in methane emission from natural sources, wouldn't that concern you? I am more concerned with the direction this is headed moreso than the impact of current (increased?) output. To me this potential is akin to finding the oceans becoming a net emitter of CO2 rather than a sink. Both of these potentails are of valid scientific concern despite BethesdaWX's claims of failure to adhere to "the scientific method".
-
Forget whether or not it has warmed over the past decade. Do you think maybe the fact that the globe has gradually warmed ~0.8C and the arctic more than double that in little over a century may have something to do with it? Please try to think longer term when concidering slowly evolving climate changes and feedbacks such as melting glacial ice, melting permafrost and growing ocean heat content. Sustained warmer conditions answers your question.
