OK Leland Palmer, I told you on several occasions where you tried to steer threads towards Methane that you should wait until WUWT had a thread that was relevant – here you go, have at it. – Anthony
One of the indisputable facts in the field of global climate change is that the atmospheric build-up of methane (CH4) has been, over the past few decades, occurring much more slowly than all predictions as to its behavior (Figure 1). Since methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas (thought to have about 25 times the warming power of CO2), emissions scenarios which fail to track methane will struggle to well-replicate the total climate forcing, likely erring on the high side—and feeding too much forcing into climate models leads to too much global warming coming out of them.
Figure 1. Atmospheric methane concentrations, 1985-2008, with the IPCC methane projections overlaid (adapted from: Dlugokencky et al., 2009)
Figure 2 shows the year-over-year change in the methane concentration of the atmosphere, and indicates not only that the growth rate of methane has been declining, but also that on several occasions during the past decade or so, it has dropped to very near zero (or even below) indicating that no increase in the atmospheric methane concentration (or a even a slight decline) occurred from one year to the next.
Figure 2. Year-to-year change in atmospheric methane concentrations, 1985-2008, (source: Dlugokencky et al., 2009)
This behavior is quite perplexing. And while we are not sure what processes are behind it, we do know one thing for certain—the slow growth of methane concentrations is an extremely cold bucket of water dumped on the overheated claims that global warming is leading to a thawing of the Arctic permafrost and the release of untold mega-quantities of methane (which, of course, will lead to more warming, more thawing, more methane, etc., and, of course, to runaway catastrophe).
To some, the blip upwards in methane growth in 2007 (Figure 2) was a sure sign that the methane beast was awakening from its unexpected slumber. Climate disaster was just around the corner (just ask Joe Romm).
But alas, despite the hue and cry, in 2008 the increase in methane, instead of equaling or exceeding the 2007 rise, turned out to be only about half of the 2007 rise. And together with information on from where it seemed to emanate (the tropics rather than the Arctic), it cannot be taken as a sign that the slow methane growth rate during the past decade was coming to an end as a result of an Arctic meltdown.
Here is how NOAA methane-guru Ed Dlugokencky and colleagues put it in their publication last week describing recent methane behavior:
We emphasize that, although changing climate has the potential to dramatically increase CH4 emissions from huge stores of carbon in permafrost and from Arctic hydrates, our observations are not consistent with sustained changes there yet.
The factual portion of their conclusion remains the same, with or without the inclusion of the final word (but it sure was nice of them to throw it in there as a bone to climate catastrophists the world over).
Reference
Dlugokencky, E. J., et al., 2009. Observational constraints on recent increases in the atmospheric CH4 burden. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18803, doi:10.1029/2009GL039780.
“When objects approach the speed of light they crush themselves to death. Can I say this without sounding stupid?”
“No” ‘
But what if their increased mass causes them to become black holes?
Neither one of you understand relativity at all.”
Paulp
Understanding is not a requirement for climate science. What is needed is belief and obedience….
I didn’t think “green house gasses” were “gasses in a green house”.
I thought the intentions were to claime that certain gasses acted like the glass in a green house.
I thought the gasses inside a green house were essentially the same as the gasses outside of it with some variation due to controlled circulation with the outside, recent applications of fresh fertilizers, sunlight, and so on.
My understanding of the way “warming” occurs inside the greenhouse (control of cold air intrusion from the outside, operation of heaters, decaying of materials of various kinds) is very different from the postulated (but so far as I know, undemonstrated) mechanism in the free atmosphere involves the absorption of energy at one frequency and re-radiation at another. The part I don’t understand in the free-air scenario is where the “extra” heat posited comes from.
“Are you saying that just because we eliminate public education everyone is going to pursue college level physics competence?” Brian
No but if they do choose to take physics the odds are better they will learn something instead of just thinking they learned something.
Wonder if there has been a corresponding decrease in the need for lime application.
On the other hand, NE Oregon families without heirs have sold high and dry tracks of land up South Fork to rich people from outside the area, who think living in a forested area that has a generation history of low snow impact is a good bet. Now their high forested and now snow buried log homes ain’t worth frozen spit. To see this on a much larger scale, travel over Tollgate and see “for sale” signs scattered every few feet from the Umatilla County side to the Union County side. Apparently warmers don’t like shoveling snow, just hate to have their floor to ceiling picture windows obscured with snow drifts, or their beautiful deer high and well constructed wood post fence pushed over by snow heaved from snow plows.
The one that just tickles me is the guy who is rebuilding his beautiful deer high and well constructed wood post fence exactly like it was originally built last summer, and the summer before that.
Anybody who buys land on a CO2=warmer bet is no better at “figuring” than the dolt who buys CO2 futures.
Yaakoba (16:07:09) :
So if I’m moving, the police will not hit me during the commission of a crime?
By the way, earlier this week I got to watch a team of astronomers attempt to video the crash of a rocket into the moon. Not actually the crash itself, but the expected plume from the crash.
It didn’t work out because the plume was too small to be seen from Earth using the refracting telescope used.
But it sure was fun to watch the attempt.
Anyway, not only was NASA able to hit the moon, they were able to hit a specific crater on the moon at a specific time. Everything involved was in the process of moving. Earth, moon, rocket, etc.
Unlike climate models on computers, which have lots of problems because no one understands all the variables in climate, computer models of spacecraft trajectories are very precise. Particularly from Earth to Moon. For interplanetary voyages, course corrections have to be made as variations in dust, comets, solar winds, asteroids will affect the spacecraft. But it can be done.
Yaakoba,
If hitting a moving target were ‘nearly impossible’, duck hunters would starve to death.
Don E (09:47:49) :
Nothing more that a state in the carbon cycle. The methane, should you collect it, is an energy source. The energy stored is from photosynthesis (solar !!!). If you fail to trap the methane (either in your compost or the dump) the CH4 reacts quickly in the atmosphere to produce C02 + 2 H20 and release the solar energy stored.
Just back to square one. SF is operating on the assumption that it is accomplishing something by taking your compost materials. It is better used by you to return to the soil that which came out, and grow your precious food.
Recycling is good: Sending your greens to the dump is not one of those good ideas.
Don’t know, but you might check with your local Extension Service. It would be local/regional in any case. Always best to take a soil sample before dumping stuff on it.
Larry Sheldon (17:35:38) :
I keep asking this off-topic question, but nobody will even yell at me for, being Off Topic.
…
What is the connection between the sulfates-that-are-good-for-the-AGW-problem, and the SO4 that made the acid rain that was killing the trees and all?
They are, essentially, one and the same. The sulfate aerosols are anything that contains the sulfate ion (SO3^-2). This comes from the oxidation of SO2 by ozone or hyrogen peroxide in the atmosphere. Once dissolved in rainwater, or absorbed onto wet soil or water surfaces sulfates become acidic. Some acid rain is probably also dissolved SO2, which makes a weak acid, and NOx, which makes nitric, nitrious acids when dissolved in water.
@ur momisugly crosspatch (10:05:23) : PS: If you haven’t seen this article, it’s a good read about related farming issues – http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals
I exchange LOP tags for fence upkeep on the ranch. The family that keeps my fences in good repair has several children who fill those tags every year. While elk tend to be more stationary when stalked, deer are much more skittish. But if you know where to aim by understanding how deer move, you can hit a moving target. Even if you are just a kid.
I think I may have underestimated the intensity of the current solar minimum. The affects may be much more severe than I originally thought it would be. Now I’m starting to get scared about how bad the cold will affect the planet.
I found video
Snow balls at Rockies/Phillies game?
http://www.mefeedia.com/news/24291970
rbateman (10:18:41) :
Recycling is good: Sending your greens to the dump is not one of those good ideas
Recycling, the best way to reduce jobs and GDP, because every item you recycle it is one less item to be sold.
@ur momisugly Dean (10:18:26) :
“Yaakoba,
If hitting a moving target were ‘nearly impossible’, duck hunters would starve to death. ”
Yaakoba probably buys that business about not being able to hit a man running away from you in the back with a bullet. As the story goes, the bullet must first travel 1/2 the distance, etc. and you can never get to zero simply by halving the successive distances. Trouble is, the bullet doesn’t know that.
Moderator,
How about gathering all the video of the snowed out Phillies/Rockies Playoff game and posting it as a thread topic?
[Reply: That is Anthony’s call. You should post your suggestion in Tips ‘n’ Notes. ~ dbs, mod.]
Here’s video from Philadelphia about the snowed out Phillies game
Phillies/Rockies Game 3 postponed
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/sports/pro/baseball&id=7058089
Baseball players are acclimated to playing in warm weather, unlike football players. It may be too dangerous to risk the players health making them play in the brutally cold weather.
Nice video from Philadelphia of the baseball snow day.
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/sports/phillies/101009_PhilliesGamePostponedByWeather
I’m downloading all the baseball snow day video to re upload on Youtube. The MSM is not giving us much snow event video for a reason, but they can’t possibley ignore the sports snow news in the cities that the snow shut out the games in. They do try hard in isolating the video to those cities thou because of the powerful affect of actual video.
Yesterdays alternative programming for the Philies/Rockies game was
Ice Age: the Meltdown.
Today’s alternative programming is The Day After Tomorrow.
They won’t be able to keep that up for long…
… if the Rockies win.
~snip~
[Open Thread would be the appropriate place to post that. ~dbs, mod.]
Pamela Gray 910:31:32) , What is an LOP ? Land owner privilege ? I believe that in Idaho land owners can obtain permits to harvest big game on their property even in restricted hunt areas . I’m a bird hunter so I don’t really keep up with it .
The reason I said that about lime is that generally sulfur and lime are used mainly for pH adjustment. You use lime to bring the pH up, sulfur to bring it down. Reduction in sulfur emissions from power plants would also result in rain being less acidic downwind of the plant. If the soil downwind of the plant has high pH, more sulfur would need to be added. If the soil is more acidic, less lime would be required if the pH of the rain is now higher.
But yeah, it is always better to have the soil tested and have it brought to the proper pH than simply adding X tons of lime because “that’s the way we have always done it”.
Adolfo, who made my “made from plastic pop bottles” cute warmup outfit? And if it was supposed to be given to me instead of sold, where do I go to get my money back?
Much of what we buy is packaged in stuff we throw away. In times past, food came in barrels and you scooped it out. What’s wrong with buying local goods shipped in bulk? If there is a package around it, odds are, we didn’t make it, we imported it, thus it is not a part of our GNP. I have no problem with buying things I want, even if it is imported. I do have a problem with what to do with all the stuff it comes in. Especially if that packaging is also not a part of our GNP.
I wonder what the stats are on this topic? It is an interesting one.