I’m taking a blog holiday this weekend. Right now I’m watching the History channel 2 (H2) while some off the rails eco-scientist explains to us why we are all going to die because of “what might happen if a gigantic methane-gas explosion occurred in the Pacific.” Methane Explosion (2007) watch the video:
I had to laugh at the YouTube description (bold mine):
History Channel “Mega Disasters” series. This explores the controversial paper published by Northwestern University’s Gregory Ryskin. His thesis: the oceans periodically produce massive eruptions of explosive methane gas… enough to cause global catastrophe on a regular basis!
Discuss the methane explosions or whatever you like, within site policy. If you want to submit a guest post, flag a moderator.
WUWT will return to its regularly scheduled programming Sunday evening.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Truth Is Out There
(On South Park)
😉
Louise says:
February 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Yet the Kara and Barents Seas are unusually ice free http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/02/barentsz-and-kara.html
=============
OK, I’ll go thru the motions.
Quote from your link:
“What could be causing such an early retreat of sea ice cover? The answer is probably manifold. First and foremost is the big high-pressure system over Northern Siberia that formed about 10 days ago and is helping Ded Moroz to hold Europe in a late frosty grip. At the same time this high draws in winds from the west, pushing the ice back in the Barentsz and Kara Seas. These winds also bring warm air and rain from the North Atlantic.”
———–
It is sea ice, it gets pushed around by winds and currents.
Lark says:
February 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Lark, I think you are suggesting that because flying dinosaurs were much larger than today’s birds the air pressure must have been much greater to support their weight. I don’t agree with this suggestion but there is evidence that the oxygen levels were much higher in the past.
The first link discusses recent (60 year) variations in atmospheric pressure.
Don’t stay too long at the second link – just grab the references and get out of there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/earths-changing-atmosphere/
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/atmosphere/
But, while you are pondering a thicker atmosphere, consider how birds today can fly at over 20,000 ft elevation without dropping out of the sky. The air must be pretty thin up there. Also, how can they breath at those elevations let alone fly 350 miles without resting? It turns out the scientists who want to study dinosaurs don’t know enough about our present day birds to realize the mistakes in their questions.
Air pressure at 20,000 ft is half that at surface. Birds breath differently than humans.
Myrrh says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm
I hearby resign as expert reviewer of Chapter 13: Sea Level Changes, for two reasons:
1. The deadline for review is tomorrow and I haven’t even started (I thought the deadline was next month).
2. And oh, the chapter is crap and you’re all a bunch of idiots.
Sincerely,
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Sea Level Expert
————————————————
OK, I did a little word-smithing on his letter. But I have to say, the guy sounds like an idiot, so resigning probably helped the cause. Who signs a letter “Sea Level Expert” anyway?
Sincerely,
Mr. Steve from Rockwood
Blog Commenting Expert
Didn’t we see a story a while back about methane erupting from the sea in unprecedented quantities? Ah yes, here it is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
I’m going to call Reuters or AP or someone to get a pre-emptive denial out, as I have 18-month-old twins, and today greenhouse gases, especially methane (I suspect this: I haven’t carried out any scientific tests) have been erupting from their “equatorial regions” in unprecedented quantities.
They, I have to say, seem rather proud of their farty achievements. Their parents are, on the other hand, worried that James E. Hansen is going to blame us for a never-seen-before rise in polar bear suicides or somesuch.
Anthony, a question, why do you include accuweather in as a lukewarmer? I mean they are not a look warmer site. More like an extreme warmest site. Just a question.
Go head-to-head with an icebreaker. Plunge down a twisting mountain gorge. Soar through the clouds in the nosecone of a jet, then speed along with a dog team as it races across a frozen Arctic lake. A sweeping, moving tribute to Canada’s stunning geography and rich cultural heritage, Momentum leaps off your screen–and touches your heart.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/icebreaker.jpg
http://www.nfb.ca/film/momentum_en/
It looks like all the weather patterns have been pushing the sea ice back in the Kara Sea, instead of out into the North Atlantic. Evidence of this can also be seen in the increasing ice thickness near the shores of the Kara Sea:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2012021018_2012020800_035_arcticictn.001.gif
Don’t tell the AGW crowd this as they don’t believe in education, only indoctrination!
Kakada…well spotted!
What do any of my ‘learned friends’ here know about the Piri Reis Map?
“So this man doesn’t know where the methane ‘pocket’ is but thinks it will hit San Diego?”
I know where it is. Off to the john…
I have heard an argument claiming to refute the greenhouse effect itself on the basis of basic thermodynamics: The surface of the earth is warm; space is cold. Therefore, CO2 molecules can’t reradiate toward the surface. This argument seems sensible on its face. Is it easily refuted?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I just love this graphic. The science behind a three folded cord deserves proper research, as do knots in general.
I’ve never understood why science seems to ignore knots when they are so important to all our lives.
If anyone knows a teenager who is teetering on the fence separating intellectual seriousness and AGW orthodoxy, please consider buying him or her a copy of my book. Too many of the young are being fed the unmitigated terror emanating from Michael Mann et al.
http://amzn.to/xam4iF
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10375026-spectacular-cloud-tsunami-rolls-over-florida-high-rise-condos
From the interesting weather photo files, amazing and beautiful pics of fog rolling in off the ocean in Panama City Florida. I’ve never seen the like.
The vast quantities of frozen Methane Calthrate on the ocean floor are ten times the proven reserves. The polar cap Methane Hydrates exceed proven reserves by six fold. Although ‘proven reserves’ as misproven, as there is Methane under ever rock you can FRACK. This is all ‘elemental Methane’, just as the ocean floor is full of liquid ‘elemental CO2’. When large atoms decay [fission] the released neutrons, protons and electrons are still present in lower order elements and are thus ‘elemental atoms’ subject to enormous heat and pressure they combine to from ‘elemental molecules’. This is explained in “Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste” and “Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux”. Also see “Volcanic CO2” by geologist Timothy Casey posted here, http://geologist-1011.net
@ur momisugly Lark
YES, the atmosphere is being constantly eroded by solar wind and by cosmic ray decay, which is how Nitrogen goes from N14 to Carbon as C14. The four parameters of flight are gravity, lift, thrust and drag. ASSUMING that gravity did not change in the last 60 million years, and that muscles did not evolve to be magnitudes of strength LESS, then the only reasonable answer is greater lift from a denser air mass. This proved by UCSD Aeronautical Engineers some time ago. Pterodactyal Quezalocoatus wing span was 36 ft, todays Peruvian Condor wing span is 16 ft. Meganeura Dragonfly wingspan was 20 inches, todays Atlas Moth wingspan is 11 inches.
And YES, the US TVA did produce a workable Thorium reactor, BUT it had no usefull bomb grade waste and the processing of input fuel did not underwrite the Uranium based nuclear bomb industry. A clear case of the ‘military-industrial complex’ responding to the HIGHER calling of the ICBMs.
Charles Gerard Nelson says: February 11, 2012 at 5:05 pm
This site may be of interest, though Indian Ocean, there may be valuable references in some papers.
http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/events_categorydetails.asp?categoryid=6&eventid=539
History of Aceh & the Indian Ocean World
for eg Paper 2. Goksoy
“….but CAN we afford that much Gas-X?” – J.D.
J.D. we’ll have to ramp up production of Gas-X to offset the F.E.A.R. (Fraidy Environmentalists Anticipating Rapture) factors.
http://www.uky.edu/Pharmacy/faculty/kuhn/formulary/group6/gasx.jpg
The real question is how much Gas-X is needed to deal with this problem? Anthony? Willis?
[;)]
I love the South Park version of the HIstory Channel slogan: “The History Channel, where the truth is history!”
Another reason we need to drill-baby-drill. Gotta get that over pressured methane and use it.
I personally think that a methane explosion (not at the scale those fools are talking about) is far more likely to happen than AGW.
JC says (February 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm): “I have heard an argument claiming to refute the greenhouse effect itself on the basis of basic thermodynamics: The surface of the earth is warm; space is cold. Therefore, CO2 molecules can’t reradiate toward the surface. This argument seems sensible on its face. Is it easily refuted?”
As I recently discovered (heh heh), this comes up frequently at WUWT. It seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
Short answer: Yes, I think it’s easily refuted by the example of the infrared camera, which can detect (by their emissions) objects colder than itself. See the infrared photo at the top of this page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-conversation-with-an-infrared-radiation-expert/
I’m sadly addicted to some of the crap the history channel throws up there. Not that I believe half the claptrap they produce, but with the high production values, and amusing logical fallacies, it’s great fun to watch. “The government denies there are any aliens at all, so they must be colluding with them!!”
Their reality competition show Top Shot is actually amusing, the high speed camera work capturing the bullet flights is great. Also excited about that Full Metal Jousting show that they’re coming out with… should be a good time.
But if you believe anything they produce is really based in fact, you’re a lunatic.
Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.
(1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.
(2) The “rate of cooling” is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.
(3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.
(4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn’t work that way.
(5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.
(6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.
(7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.
(8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.
(9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.
(10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.
If I haven’t convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Steve from Rockwood says:
February 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Well, given that Mörner has probably spent more time that anyone else on the planet studying sea levels, I think he can call himself an expert.
I heard him talk at the ICCC in Chicago a couple years ago. He was 72 years old, but probably put on the most animated talk of anyone there and kept it up that evening during social time. He doesn’t have time to suffer fools gladly. Nor does he pull any punches – he speaks his mind.
I’m not sure what possessed him to become an expert reviewer of the next IPCC report, when he reviewed the third, he said:
He is retired now, and doesn’t have a job to protect. I’m not expecting him to be looking to make many new friends. Like Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, some stuff he’s exploring is more than a bit odd, see my post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/nils-axel-morner-arctic-environment-by-the-middle-of-this-century/ . On the other hand, there is more support for that idea now than in last July.
A fairly recent article about him is at
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf “Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud.”
Here’s another recent Mörner story – http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml
A different sort of article is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1153 (Note right side nav bar on WUWT pages says “Unreliable; Skeptical Science – John Cook; Unreliable Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”