Leaking Siberian Methane

[BethesdaWX]

The marginal increase in atmospheric CO2 almost certainly is more relevant than the fact that CO2 is a trace gas and will almost certainly remain a trace gas. More likely than debunking a contribution from CO2, I suspect scientists will refine their estimates of the contribution made by CO2 vs. natural forcings. I make no predictions about the direction of those refinements, but will note that the seemingly intriguing flip from direct to indirect relationships or vice versa between some natural forcings and global temperatures when CO2 is introduced into the mix, might hint toward a larger role for CO2 down the road. Given the lack of data, I hesitate to reach such a conclusion at this point in time, but it is not implausible. I'll wait for more scientific research and also a larger sample before reaching a firm conclusion on that issue.

Exactly, thats my point, in a sense. This is my view, a skeptics view.......Trace Gases do not drive Global Temperatures, natural/solar forcings (that we still underestimate & know little about) drive the the atmosphere, & Co2 responds, So Us Pumping out More Co2 won't change that, since the Co2 itself is of minimal impact to warming trends we've seen... sure its a GHG, and sure, it has WP, but its "niche" in the climate is basically finished once it reaches 200ppm.

The warmist/IPCC view is somewhat narrow...><

"Equations per doubling" etc etc etc.... are based upon Computer modeling with understanding of the Co2 molecule & the radiative forcing from such... but...not only have they mis-represented the feebacks we already know about via OBS (theres 2/3 of your warming right there FYI)... but there are millions of other complex forcings & inter-relationships that we do not know about... to the point where our understanding of how CO2 will behave in our atmosphere is very weak.

My view...Doubling Co2 to 800ppm will result on <0.1C GTA increase.

There is evidence on both sides of the argument, but neither can be proven yet.

[skierinvermont]

I agree about the reliability. Hopefully, if a link to the datasets is provided, those datasets will contain the necessary technical information to assess the reliability of the dataset. I'm concerned also that the dataset is just too recent to be of much use (if the dates on the graphs are indicative). Right now, I'm fairly confident that the earlier statistical assessments won't change materially even if the cloud cover data is included.

I've asked him for a link before and all he gave me was this

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

which wasn't very helpful. Just a collection of images no data or sources provided.

There are some good graphs on pages 271-276 of IPCC Ch. 3 which actually contradict those that Bethesda posted.

The graph on page 272 of water vapor shows that water vapor has been rising not falling. It comes from Trenberth 2005.

Then there is a graph on page 276 of cloud cover and a discussion of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project

[donsutherland1]

Exactly, thats my point, in a sense. This is my view, a skeptics view.......Trace Gases do not drive Global Temperatures, natural/solar forcings (that we still underestimate & know little about) drive the the atmosphere, & Co2 responds, So Us Pumping out More Co2 won't change that, since the Co2 itself is of minimal impact to warming trends we've seen... sure its a GHG, and sure, it has WP, but its "niche" in the climate is basically finished once it reaches 200ppm.

I probably wasn't sufficiently clear. I meant that the marginal increase in CO2 (change in x parts per million) is more important in terms of impacts than the fact that CO2 is a trace gas and will remain a trace gas. A marginal increase can have an impact (and I believe it is already exerting some influence), all the while CO2 remains a trace gas.

My view...Doubling Co2 to 800ppm will result on <0.1C GTA increase.

There is evidence on both sides of the argument, but neither can be proven yet.

While I can't quantify the increase in global temperatures that would result from an increase to 800 ppm, I would be very surprised if the impact was < 0.1°C. I suspect it would be much larger than that, though can't put an exact figure on the magnitude of the warming. I don't believe the is any model scenario, imperfections noted, that would suggest barely any increase in temperatures for such an increase in CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

I've asked him for a link before and all he gave me was this

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

which wasn't very helpful. Just a collection of images no data or sources provided.

There are some good graphs on pages 271-276 of IPCC Ch. 3 which actually contradict those that Bethesda posted.

The graph on page 272 of water vapor shows that water vapor has been rising not falling. It comes from Trenberth 2005.

Then there is a graph on page 276 of cloud cover and a discussion of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project

huh? I gave you plenty of others in that thread.

[skierinvermont]

huh? I gave you plenty of others in that thread.

Feel free to quote yourself providing me with a link to cloud cover data/the source you got it from. Here is the page of the thread in question for your perusal. If I missed a link I would love to see it. Go ahead and quote yourself.

http://www.americanw...s/page__st__160

[BethesdaWX]

I probably wasn't sufficiently clear. I meant that the marginal increase in CO2 (change in x parts per million) is more important in terms of impacts than the fact that CO2 is a trace gas and will remain a trace gas. A marginal increase can have an impact (and I believe it is already exerting some influence), all the while CO2 remains a trace gas.

While I can't quantify the increase in global temperatures that would result from an increase to 800 ppm, I would be very surprised if the impact was < 0.1°C. I suspect it would be much larger than that, though can't put an exact figure on the magnitude of the warming. I don't believe the is any model scenario, imperfections noted, that would suggest barely any increase in temperatures for such an increase in CO2.

This is the problem here. About 2/3 of the modeled warming due to Co2 has been attributed through feedbacks that have been debunked through OBS, as I posted earlier on.

Then, we have WV, which contributes 95% of the GHE

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

Issue is, OurModels are incorrect. In the MWP, for example, caused by solar activity, using shaky proxy data to attempt to verify can be risky. in the MWP, Glaciers & Ice in both the Arctic & Antarctic were both much smaller than todays glaciers, Global treelines were higher, & all around the NH, plant/tree material is being found under todays melting glaciers.

Co2 cannot be pegged as a Cause for that warming, so,with similar Solar Today, this same could be said about todays numbers.... Co2 cannot be pegged as a cause. The models that we use to comeup with these equations not only have Hidden datacodes, but they are based upon sequence & theory that we know how Co2 will interact & behave in our atmosphere........we don't know that.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Thus, its a hypothesis.. so far, the models have been debunked.

[BethesdaWX]

Feel free to quote yourself providing me with a link to cloud cover data/the source you got it from. Here is the page of the thread in question for your perusal. If I missed a link I would love to see it. Go ahead and quote yourself.

http://www.americanw...s/page__st__160

Its satellite data.

[skierinvermont]

Its satellite data.

I'll take that as "Oh, I'm sorry, you are right, I never provided a proper source for that graph. My mistake. Here you go _______"

[stellarfun]

Don, you have the patience of Job.

[BethesdaWX]

I'll take that as "Oh, I'm sorry, you are right, I never provided a proper source for that graph. My mistake. Here you go _______"

I'm not sure what you're arguing. We post UAH here all the time, knowing its UAH. Not sure why you don't have the memo yet.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. We post UAH here all the time, knowing its UAH. Not sure why you don't have the memo yet.

And when we post UAH data I know that it is provided by John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Huntsville Alabama, that it is in mediocre agreement with RSS (it runs cooler), that it has been subject to large errors in the past, but that those errors have been corrected, and that it is generally accepted as fairly accurate by the IPCC and in peer-reviewed journals.

When you post a graph that says "satellite data" on it, I know NOTHING about it other than that it comes from a satellite.

You need to provide the source from which the graph comes. In other words, where has it been published.

[BethesdaWX]

And when we post UAH data I know that it is provided by John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Huntsville Alabama, that it is in mediocre agreement with RSS (it runs cooler), that it has been subject to large errors in the past, but that those errors have been corrected, and that it is generally accepted as fairly accurate by the IPCC and in peer-reviewed journals.

When you post a graph that says "satellite data" on it, I know NOTHING about it other than that it comes from a satellite.

You need to provide the source from which the graph comes. In other words, where has it been published.

This? Look back at posts in NOV and mine is a link within a hyperlink

http://www.inesad.ed...mm_20090323.htm

Now, where is YOUR link claiming the GISS adjustements to be correct?

[BethesdaWX]

This is stupid and ridiculous, can we get back on topic now.....you know.....start talking about Science? Lets leave Skiers lacking reading skills & errors behind, k?

[donsutherland1]

This is the problem here. About 2/3 of the modeled warming due to Co2 has been attributed through feedbacks that have been debunked through OBS, as I posted earlier on.

Without doubt, there is uncertainty in the modeling.

]Then, we have WV, which contributes 95% of the GHE

One also has to consider the changes in various GHG that are taking place and the heat-trapping properties of those respective GHG. Hence, the impact would be very different if water vapor increased by a percentage point than if methane increased by a percentage point.

Co2 cannot be pegged as a Cause for that warming, so,with similar Solar Today, this same could be said about todays numbers.... Co2 cannot be pegged as a cause. The models that we use to comeup with these equations not only have Hidden datacodes, but they are based upon sequence & theory that we know how Co2 will interact & behave in our atmosphere........we don't know that.

What has happened, especially since the mid-20th century, is that the explanatory power of natural forcings has fallen with respect to the climate change (observed warming) that has been occurring. However, when CO2 is considered, the overall forcings (natural + CO2) do a very good job in explaining the observed warming. Moreover, increasing atmospheric CO2 appears to explain an increasing share of the most recent warming. Exact contributions are still not certain e.g., there remains uncertainty. But the forcings with CO2 do a vastly better job in explaining the observed warming, especially over recent decades, than the forcings excluding CO2. Given the improved explanatory performance when CO2 is considered, not to mention, the deterioration in the explanatory power of only the natural forcings, the case that CO2 has contributed to the warming is credible, even if exact details remain to be resolved and uncertainties still exist.

[WeatherRusty]

Another thread ruined. A real scientific discussion should be based on peer-reviewed material with proper citation given. What goes on here is nothing but a war of opinion without any rules or constraints. Force a climate skeptic to rely on peer-reviewed material and bye bye to the bulk of their contributions.

[donsutherland1]

This is stupid and ridiculous, can we get back on topic now.....you know.....start talking about Science? Lets leave Skiers lacking reading skills & errors behind, k?

While Skierinvermont and you hold sharply differing positions on the issue of climate change, it is unncecessary and unfair to attribute the questions/issues he raises to a 'lack of reading skills & errors.'

[BethesdaWX]

Without doubt, there is uncertainty in the modeling.

One also has to consider the changes in various GHG that are taking place and the heat-trapping properties of those respective GHG. Hence, the impact would be very different if water vapor increased by a percentage point than if methane increased by a percentage point.

What has happened, especially since the mid-20th century, is that the explanatory power of natural forcings has fallen with respect to the climate change (observed warming) that has been occurring. However, when CO2 is considered, the overall forcings (natural + CO2) do a very good job in explaining the observed warming. Moreover, increasing atmospheric CO2 appears to explain an increasing share of the most recent warming. Exact contributions are still not certain e.g., there remains uncertainty. But the forcings with CO2 do a vastly better job in explaining the observed warming, especially over recent decades, than the forcings excluding CO2. Given the improved explanatory performance when CO2 is considered, not to mention, the deterioration in the explanatory power of only the natural forcings, the case that CO2 has contributed to the warming is credible, even if exact details remain to be resolved and uncertainties still exist.

I feel there is alot of error in your post, especially what I've highlighted in red. There is no evidence of Natural forcings loosing influence, because they've all been so warm for so long.. the fact that our warming has followed Solar to a Tee (I'll get to that later in the post). I'm not interested in computer model Co2 Scenarios using the properties of the molecule to base the warming off... that has nothing to do with how the atmospheric end result will work out... there is no doubt in my mind that Co2 is rising, that has never been my argument. We cannot experiment with Co2 like a Chemist can experiment with a Chemical, because our atmosphere is too complex. As you can see, what we've based our recent warming off has been disproved through OBS of depicted warming/change.

Any warming we've seen can be explained through natural causes, such as GCC, Oceans, Solar, & Data Measurement Changes. There is no Co2 warming needed to match our current global temperature. Temps in the MWP were almost 1C above those of today, and that was completely solar Caused. No, I'm not talking about debunked Hockeysticks, the simple fact that Both the Arctic & Antarctic had Less ice in the MWP than we have now...the fact that Global Treelines were Higher, & the fact that trees were growing where our glaciers have just retreated from. Again, if solar can do that...why can't todays solar do something similar? Its about the same.

Again....Satellite Era alone, 100% of this can be explained through Solar & Ocean. Sure, we could peg Co2 as a Cause as well... but that doesn't change the fact that it Could be explained 100% naturally.

Again......Natural Cycles have Gone warm.

NOAA's image... you can see the Immense dominance being shown by El Nino since the PDO went warm.

Then account solar for the Long Term... & theres your warming.

Again, the MWP coincided with high Solar Activity, as did the RWP, & The Modern Warming. The LIA coincided with Low Solar Activity.

I'm a firm believer that Solar Activity is responsible for more than 95% of our observed warming trend since the LIA,.

GCC's lowlevel decrease is a major warming factor, changes in WV that we've seen are completelyt representative of those LL changes, so its not what one would consider a "cooling" factor. Whatever is causing these changes in GCC is another HUGE factor.... the only reasonable explanation is GCR, 3% decrease in the CC definitely have nothing to do with CO2 increase

Here is why Observed warming has not fit in line with what would be expected of Co2 warming... there correlation being shown from models (explanation derived from Co2, as progged by GISS & the AGW hypothesis) in exactly how this can correlate to Co2.

In what we derive from, our Computer models are based upon the theory that Co2 is the underlying cause, & the feedbacks have been knowingly waaayyy to positive for a long time....observations confirm that the supposed reasoning for our current warming are not true, based on observation

What was modeled was Co2 based.... what was observed was Natural Based!

This simple problem accounts for more than 75% of "predicted" warming....the warming that has occured with all drivers warm can account for previous enhancement.

[BethesdaWX]

While Skierinvermont and you hold sharply differing positions on the issue of climate change, it is unncecessary and unfair to attribute the questions/issues he raises to a 'lack of reading skills & errors.'

I wish I could take back that post, it was a bit harsh on my part.

[donsutherland1]

Coefficients of determination (CO2 and temperature anomalies):

10-year moving average: 0.981

Annual averages: 0.819

The lower figure is not surprising, as synoptics play a larger role in annual anomalies.

[BethesdaWX]

Coefficients of determination (CO2 and temperature anomalies):

10-year moving average: 0.981

Annual averages: 0.819

The lower figure is not surprising, as synoptics play a larger role in annual anomalies

Can you give a source for this? I assume it is based on computer model results for warming based upon Co2 & its properties...along with hypothesized results/interactions in the atmosphere, right?

-Maybe a time period used for this measurement?

-What forcings were involved/considered in determining the final result?.....Such as Solar Cycle, Cloud Cover, Volanoes, AMO/PDO & the resulting ENSO changes, Multi Century Ocean Current Changes?

-Now,maybe source of Measurement, weighting of the natural drivers invloved, etc?

- And maybe which models were used to make the determination of the supposed correlation?

My post above addresses why our observed warming is by no sure means Co2 related, and why our observed warming is possibly 95%+ Solar/Naturally caused.

The entire theory that Co2 has caused our recent warming can be questioned heavily through simple OBS.

Thankyou

[skierinvermont]

This? Look back at posts in NOV and mine is a link within a hyperlink

http://www.inesad.ed...mm_20090323.htm

Now, where is YOUR link claiming the GISS adjustements to be correct?

First of all, the link above does not take you to where the data was originally published. It takes you to some random discussion of bolivian glaciers that happens to have one of the images you posted included in the text. Embedded within the text is a link to another skeptic website from where the image was drawn. You are leading us in circles of skeptic websites quoting other skeptic websites. Proper sourcing means providing the original publication of the data.

Second of all, you did not provide the above link in our earlier discussions and even if you had, I would have told you that, like the other link you provided, it is not a proper source.

Please provide us with a link to the original publication of the data in question.

[BethesdaWX]

First of all, the link above does not take you to where the data was originally published. It takes you to some random discussion of bolivian glaciers that happens to have one of the images you posted included in the text. Embedded within the text is a link to another skeptic website from where the image was drawn.

Second of all, you did not provide the above link in our earlier discussions and even if you had, I would have told you that, like the other link you provided, it is not a proper source.

Please provide us with a link to the original publication of the data in question.

Its because you never read.

There is small link under the Image, in the article, stating "source of image"...click on that, and it takes you to the site for all measurements of such.

It will take you to a site called "climate4you"... in which it has the measurements, & the satellites being used to do so.

does that help?

Or, do I have to post the link myself because you refuse to read? I try find pages that contain data "within"... so you'll spend more time on the page, & engage your mind a bit....trying to help ya here bro.

[skierinvermont]

Can you give a source for this? I assume it is based on computer model results for warming based upon Co2 & its properties...along with hypothesized results/interactions in the atmosphere, right?

-Maybe a time period used for this measurement?

-What forcings were involved/considered in determining the final result?.....Such as Solar Cycle, Cloud Cover, Volanoes, AMO/PDO & the resulting ENSO changes, Multi Century Ocean Current Changes?

-Now,maybe source of Measurement, weighting of the natural drivers invloved, etc?

- And maybe which models were used to make the determination of the supposed correlation?

My post above addresses why our observed warming is by no sure means Co2 related, and why our observed warming is possibly 95%+ Solar/Naturally caused.

The entire theory that Co2 has caused our recent warming can be questioned heavily through simple OBS.

Thankyou

I don't think you are understand what Don posted at all.

What he posted was another statistical calculation that he himself performed most likely using excel. It does not come from a climate model. Climate models do not perform statistical tests of correlation. Humans do that either by hand, or by using statistical analysis programs such as Excel or SPSS. As one might expect, climate models model the climate.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't think you are understand what Don posted at all.

What he posted was another statistical calculation that he himself performed most likely using excel. It does not come from a climate model.

Yep... you're clueless. He's comparing it to Co2... I'm asking for his opinions & basis for the aquirred forcings he uses to make the determination that the result is traced to Co2.... again...Can you READ?

[skierinvermont]

Its because you never read.

There is small link under the Image, in the article, stating "source of image"...click on that, and it takes you to the site for all measurements of such.

It will take you to a site called "climate4you"... in which it has the measurements, & the satellites being used to do so.

does that help?

Which takes you to yet another skeptic website and a collection of many other images. Not the original publication of the data. You need to learn what a proper source is.

So no.. it does not help.

[skierinvermont]

Yep... you're clueless. He's comparing it to Co2... I'm asking for his opinions & basis for the aquirred forcings he uses to make the determination that the result is traced to Co2.... again...Can you READ?

You asked him for a source for the correlations coefficients he posted.

That seems like a poor question to me, considering they are calculations he performed on his personal computer.

[BethesdaWX]

Which takes you to yet another skeptic website and a collection of many other images. Not the original publication of the data. You need to learn what a proper source is.

So no.. it does not help.

Its not a skeptic website nor a warmist website, its has GISS, HADCRUT, & all the warmist models on there.

Now, select "Clouds"...... and you have the satellites being used. Can you name it? You can do it

[BethesdaWX]

You asked him for a source for the correlations coefficients he posted.

That seems like a poor question to me, considering they are calculations he performed on his personal computer.

huh? Thats not what I was asking at all.... the point was the relation to Co2 as a base.

[skierinvermont]

Without doubt, there is uncertainty in the modeling.

One also has to consider the changes in various GHG that are taking place and the heat-trapping properties of those respective GHG. Hence, the impact would be very different if water vapor increased by a percentage point than if methane increased by a percentage point.

What has happened, especially since the mid-20th century, is that the explanatory power of natural forcings has fallen with respect to the climate change (observed warming) that has been occurring. However, when CO2 is considered, the overall forcings (natural + CO2) do a very good job in explaining the observed warming. Moreover, increasing atmospheric CO2 appears to explain an increasing share of the most recent warming. Exact contributions are still not certain e.g., there remains uncertainty. But the forcings with CO2 do a vastly better job in explaining the observed warming, especially over recent decades, than the forcings excluding CO2. Given the improved explanatory performance when CO2 is considered, not to mention, the deterioration in the explanatory power of only the natural forcings, the case that CO2 has contributed to the warming is credible, even if exact details remain to be resolved and uncertainties still exist.

While correlation analyses are certainly interesting Don, and basically show what one would expect (CO2 explains much of the warming especially late century), a more accurate and precise picture of cause and effect can probably be formed just looking at the theoretical physics behind the warming. The statistics are complicated and can obscure a cause and effect relationship especially when you start using many different competing variables.

Given we have satellite measurements showing a very large net energy imbalance on the planet over the last 30 years, and given that these same measurements show declining radiation escaping the earths atmosphere specifically at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, one can therefore attribute the large energy imbalance and therefore the surface warming to CO2. The energy imbalance of our planet is due to less and less radiation escaping the earth's atmosphere specifically at those wavelengths absorbed by CO2. I feel that this establishes causation far better than a statistical study can, though it is interesting to see the results of such an ANOVA.

[BethesdaWX]

FYI its not "new" published, breaking news data, its been measured for 31 years, what are you talking about.