oldlogin Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/ap/november/175343/Leaking-Siberian-ice-raises-a-tricky-climate-issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 Then why has methane been leveling off the past few decades? In fact, it has been decreasing over the past several years. Everyday, I hear "OH NO, we're gonna die"............... Tipping Point, Runaway Warming, "Unprecedented", Alarming, Death Spiral....all the tearms of Doom. Lest we forget that this has happened hundreds of times in our past? I'd rather not, but, nothing abnormal going on here. Using 2006 Sea Surface anoms... whats to worry? The Cooling trend over the many millenium is more scary to me than the recent warming trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceicebyebye Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 Then why has methane been leveling off the past few decades? In fact, it has been decreasing over the past several years. Everyday, I hear "OH NO, we're gonna die"............... Tipping Point, Runaway Warming, "Unprecedented", Alarming, Death Spiral....all the tearms of Doom. Lest we forget that this has happened hundreds of times in our past? I'd rather not, but, nothing abnormal going on here. Using 2006 Sea Surface anoms... whats to worry? The Cooling trend over the many millenium is more scary to me than the recent warming trend. LOL...."Updated March 2007"....FAIL. A wise farmer once said that cherries picked long ago just don't taste good. A fresher view just for you: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 LOL...."Updated March 2007"....FAIL. A wise farmer once said that cherries picked long ago just don't taste good. A fresher view just for you: Your point? The article says "the past few decades", yet, during that timeframe, the trend has been slowing. It still is not as fast as it was in the 70's....when the globe was at its coldest in 4 decades. Temperature trending and Methane have no correlation, and the Methane was increasing at a faster rate when there was MORE ice. Notice, sea Ice has been on the decrease due to the +AMO/PDO, while land Ice has not done so at the same rate.....because its Sea Surface Temps. You have the Global Temperature pattern following the solar cycle to a Tee with a 5-8 year Lag. Anyhow, three years trend ain't climate dude. Long Term SST's dictate the Earth has been warmer, and this has happened several times over, at 3x the scale. If you want to take a 3 year trend out of an overall flatening trend, how about I bring up the fact that we've stopped warming since 1997? Wheres this "unprecedented" warming? Looks about normal to me. If you need to charry pick to get your argument, then your argument is not sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 There's clearly been a plateau. But hey, there's always methane in the pipeline, just like the accelerating warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 From what I understand, although I don't recall where I heard it, the reason methane leveled off is because of new regulations in the former USSR that basically required factories and plants to not just spew CH4 into the atmosphere. Edit: Here's a good article on it from Andy Revkin: http://www.nytimes.c...nce&oref=slogin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceicebyebye Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Your point? The article says "the past few decades", yet, during that timeframe, the trend has been slowing. It still is not as fast as it was in the 70's....when the globe was at its coldest in 4 decades. Temperature trending and Methane have no correlation, and the Methane was increasing at a faster rate when there was MORE ice. Notice, sea Ice has been on the decrease due to the +AMO/PDO, while land Ice has not done so at the same rate.....because its Sea Surface Temps. You have the Global Temperature pattern following the solar cycle to a Tee with a 5-8 year Lag. Anyhow, three years trend ain't climate dude. Long Term SST's dictate the Earth has been warmer, and this has happened several times over, at 3x the scale. If you want to take a 3 year trend out of an overall flatening trend, how about I bring up the fact that we've stopped warming since 1997? Wheres this "unprecedented" warming? Looks about normal to me. If you need to charry pick to get your argument, then your argument is not sound. There's so much wrong with your last few posts I don't know where to start. You said that "methane has been leveling off the past few decades" and "it has been decreasing the past few years". Both statements are completely and utterly untrue, unless you disagree with basic mathematics and trend line analysis. Your "three years trend ain't climate" is laughable. The long term trend shows rising methane levels. And the "no warming since 1997" zinger is simply an ideological position not grounded in fact. Pick your time series, from 5 to 100 years, and you will see warming. Admittedly, the 10 or 12 year trend is weaker relative to the most recent 5 year trend, but it is a positive trend, and the planet has continued to accumlate heat since your beloved Nino oscillation in 98. And well 2010, I've heard it's been a bit warm this year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 There's so much wrong with your last few posts I don't know where to start. You said that "methane has been leveling off the past few decades" and "it has been decreasing the past few years". Both statements are completely and utterly untrue, unless you disagree with basic mathematics and trend line analysis. Your "three years trend ain't climate" is laughable. The long term trend shows rising methane levels. And the "no warming since 1997" zinger is simply an ideological position not grounded in fact. Pick your time series, from 5 to 100 years, and you will see warming. Admittedly, the 10 or 12 year trend is weaker relative to the most recent 5 year trend, but it is a positive trend, and the planet has continued to accumlate heat since your beloved Nino oscillation in 98. And well 2010, I've heard it's been a bit warm this year... Why argue snippets of my post with untrue statements? Methane, over the past 2.5 decades, has been slowing the incline... also known as "leveling off". "No warming since 1997" is as fact is it will get in climate.... get it? No warming for 1.5 decades. Phil Jones correctly stated.... "There has been no statistical Global Warming since 1995". And, no Recorded rise is Global Temperatures since 1997. This all happening during a timeframe where we've seen 2 super-ninos, 75% El Nino Dominance, Historic Solar Max, +PDO/+AMO, and an Epic Increase in CO2/GHG.......Yet.... we can't warm at all? That should have brought us to at least +1C Globally... yet, we're a measely +0.25C at this time in NOV. Ironic, eh? Why do you continue to cherry-pick arguments? Methane was rising faster in the 70's than it is now.... and when you compare Atmospheric Methane with Ice Loss, it doesn't Match. You also forget the fact that the warming we've seen is NOT unprecedented. The MWP, RWP, all were well warmer than today...yet AGW was not the cause. Think Solar For a Minute. The warming temperatures actually begun before the Industrial revolution...since the Maunder. Now... the Dalton... since that time, global temps have been increasing... when we supposedly rose 0.7C. Yet, we foget that it was Solar Cycles that caused the MWP... the sea levels that were actually several meters higher than todays, when the vikings grew vinyards over iceland. Solar.. its not something to mess around with. Our current solar cycle started waning in the late 90's, global temps stopped rising in the late 90's. Now, with the Lag expected with this minimum that begain in 2005-2006 * Later, the effects should not be recognized globally for a little while longer. Maybe 1-2 yrs, in the 5-8 yr lag expereinced after an immense cycle such as the Modern max. As you can see, nothing unprecedented. All the recent warming can also be explained by the AMO/PDO......What a Match!!! Heres more evidence Using anything as a basis of alarm... a necessary trace gas is one that can be laughed at. In reality, a gas, that is naturally recycled and changed, should not be cause for alarm. It is not worh crippling the economies and peoples livelyhoods. Its no wonder the public is turning away from the AGW movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Clearly drawn by an amateur 4th grader. Love to see the source on that one LOL. I can draw better: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 There's so much wrong with your last few posts I don't know where to start. Yep that's the problem he basically throws so much s*** out there it's impossible to respond to it all. His posts never contain complete arguments.. just little snippets of nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Yep that's the problem he basically throws so much s*** out there it's impossible to respond to it all. His posts never contain complete arguments.. just little snippets of nonsense. Based off what? Like always, you make claims with no backup whatsoever. I gave a thorough response, with legit data to back it up. The only "sh*t" out there is your own. If you need my help, let me know. If not, then start debating with a sense of sanity. The "kid" drawing BS is getting old Skier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Based off what? Like always, you make claims with no backup whatsoever. I gave a thorough response, with legit data to back it up. The only "sh*t" out there is your own. If you need my help, let me know. If not, then start debating with a sense of sanity. The "kid" drawing BS is getting old Skier. Then show us the source for the graph.. otherwise I call BS. I'm done responding to your repetitive nonsense.. you just throw out little snippets without a complete argument so it's not even possible to respond to. I read your posts and I'm just like,... so what? What's your point? You haven't proven anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 Then show us the source for the graph.. otherwise I call BS. I'm done responding to your repetitive nonsense.. you just throw out little snippets without a complete argument so it's not even possible to respond to. I read your posts and I'm just like,... so what? What's your point? You haven't proven anything. Only nonsense here is coming from you. You have yet to give a reason for your assertion that I give "snippets" of data...........Its you bud. Back up your arguments or go home. Read, then Post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceicebyebye Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Then why has methane been leveling off the past few decades? In fact, it has been decreasing over the past several years. How about this snippet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Yet, we foget that it was Solar Cycles that caused the MWP... the sea levels that were actually several meters higher than todays Did you say several meters higher? Do you know how stupid that sounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Did you say several meters higher? Do you know how stupid that sounds? It was supposed to be inches. I think you knew that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 How about this snippet? From one station? Regardless, you skipped around my post completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceicebyebye Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 From one station? Regardless, you skipped around my post completely. Feel free to post a more timely graph from Cape Grim, which will also show increasing methane levels over the past few years. When your first few statements are riddled with error, I tend to drift off given that your remaining assertions will likely be questionable and/or not grounded in fact. .And skier has provided some color on your methodology... cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Feel free to post a more timely graph from Cape Grim, which will also show increasing methane levels over the past few years. When your first few statements are riddled with error, I tend to drift off given that your remaining assertions will likely be questionable and/or not grounded in fact. .And skier has provided some color on your methodology... cheers If you are going to continue to debate me, than respond, don't hide. MLO is Green Star.......get the point? In Case you missed my post, here it is. Why argue snippets of my post with untrue statements? Methane, over the past 2.5 decades, has been slowing the incline... also known as "leveling off". "No warming since 1997" is as fact is it will get in climate.... get it? No warming for 1.5 decades. Phil Jones correctly stated.... "There has been no statistical Global Warming since 1995". And, no Recorded rise is Global Temperatures since 1997. This all happening during a timeframe where we've seen 2 super-ninos, 75% El Nino Dominance, Historic Solar Max, +PDO/+AMO, and an Epic Increase in CO2/GHG.......Yet.... we can't warm at all? That should have brought us to at least +1C Globally... yet, we're a measely +0.25C at this time in NOV. Ironic, eh? Why do you continue to cherry-pick arguments? Methane was rising faster in the 70's than it is now.... and when you compare Atmospheric Methane with Ice Loss, it doesn't Match. You also forget the fact that the warming we've seen is NOT unprecedented. The MWP, RWP, all were well warmer than today...yet AGW was not the cause. Think Solar For a Minute. The warming temperatures actually begun before the Industrial revolution...since the Maunder. Now... the Dalton... since that time, global temps have been increasing... when we supposedly rose 0.7C. Yet, we foget that it was Solar Cycles that caused the MWP... the sea levels that were actually several meters higher than todays, when the vikings grew vinyards over iceland. Solar.. its not something to mess around with. Our current solar cycle started waning in the late 90's, global temps stopped rising in the late 90's. Now, with the Lag expected with this minimum that begain in 2005-2006 * Later, the effects should not be recognized globally for a little while longer. Maybe 1-2 yrs, in the 5-8 yr lag expereinced after an immense cycle such as the Modern max. As you can see, nothing unprecedented. All the recent warming can also be explained by the AMO/PDO......What a Match!!! Resized to 98% (was 682 x 381) - Click image to enlarge Heres more evidence Using anything as a basis of alarm... a necessary trace gas is one that can be laughed at. In reality, a gas, that is naturally recycled and changed, should not be cause for alarm. It is not worh crippling the economies and peoples livelyhoods. Its no wonder the public is turning away from the AGW movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 The NOAA/ESRL site AGGI page does show an acceleration upward of methane the past few years. We'll see whether it continues. It might just be from wetland emissions with some warm summers. Over time we'll see if the peat is thawing out enough, or if ocean hydrates are being released enough to be noticeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted November 29, 2010 Share Posted November 29, 2010 Just a point. The Cycle 23 maximum was R=120.8 high but very much not historical since Cycle 19 was 190. What's more noteworthy about Solar right now is the recent minimum which was phenomenally low in terms of X-Ray flux. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 The older I get the more pronounced is my personal Methane Leak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceicebyebye Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Then why has methane been leveling off the past few decades? In fact, it has been decreasing over the past several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Haha, you posted the same thing on the other page....we went over this about 50 times. 1 station out of about 500..... Leveling trend In the MWP, with Glaciers in the Arctic MUCH smaller, & Global temps much higher, what do you think happened with methane? Both our current WP, the MWP, & The RWP...were all solar induced. I don't care what our AGW Hypothesis is, we don't use HYPOTHESIS as evidence.....unless you're a warmist How many are there again? Honestly.....I don't pay attention to data that has no raw "pre boxed" Numbers. NOAA wont release anything, so until they do, its BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Haha, you posted the same thing on the other page....we went over this about 50 times. 1 station out of about 500..... Leveling trend In the MWP, with Glaciers in the Arctic MUCH smaller, & Global temps much higher, what do you think happened with methane? Both our current WP, the MWP, & The RWP...were all solar induced. I don't care what our AGW Hypothesis is, we don't use HYPOTHESIS as evidence.....unless you're a warmist How many are there again? Honestly.....I don't pay attention to data that has no raw "pre boxed" Numbers. NOAA wont release anything, so until they do, its BS. What stations having been showing a levelling off or decrease 2007-2010? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 What stations having been showing a levelling off or decrease 2007-2010? We dont look at 3 years, we look at the trend since the 70's globally avged....leveling off buddy. Its not like it will warm the earth anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 We dont look at 3 years, we look at the trend since the 70's globally avged....leveling off buddy. Its not like it will warm the earth anyway.... iceicebyebye was talking about 2007-2010 and you bring up there are multiple stations, as though to dispute what he put down for 2007-2010. Do you then agree that 2007-2010 methane levels increased globally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 iceicebyebye was talking about 2007-2010 and you bring up there are multiple stations, as though to dispute what he put down for 2007-2010. Do you then agree that 2007-2010 methane levels increased globally? At Mauna Loa, perhaps (still no pre-grid data available, as always). Either way, it doesn't matter, given MWP Methane levels were much higher and nothing happened. Our "hypothesized" methne addition forcings are not supported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 At Mauna Loa, perhaps (still no pre-grid data available, as always). Either way, it doesn't matter, given MWP Methane levels were much higher and nothing happened. Our "hypothesized" methne addition forcings are not supported. I tend to doubt MWP methane levels were as high as today. Can you please show us some evidence? So it does matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 At Mauna Loa, perhaps (still no pre-grid data available, as always). Either way, it doesn't matter, given MWP Methane levels were much higher and nothing happened. Our "hypothesized" methne addition forcings are not supported. I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-grid data", but all of the records from Mauna Loa are freely available as is 99% of all NOAA data. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.