One of the regular alarm stories that comes from the global warming machine is that atmospheric methane with soon run amok and cause a tipping point. We are regularly treated to scare stories like this one from The Guardian on November 27th, 2012:
UN: methane released from melting ice could push climate past tipping point
Doha conference is warned that climate models do not yet take account of methane in thawing permafrost
The United Nations sounded a stark warning on the threat to the climate from methane in the thawing permafrost as governments met for the second day of climate change negotiations in Doha, Qatar.
Thawing permafrost releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, but this has not yet been included in models of the future climate. Permafrost covers nearly a quarter of the northern hemisphere at present and is estimated to contain 1,700 gigatonnes of carbon – twice the amount currently in the atmosphere. As it thaws, it could push global warming past one of the key “tipping points” that scientists believe could lead to runaway climate change.
Note the word “could” in the last sentence. That comes from models, not observations. Note also this scary quote:
Doha conference is warned that climate models do not yet take account of methane in thawing permafrost
So how do the IPCC methane models stack up against reality? Not so hot…
Clearly, nature isn’t cooperating with IPCC science as atmospheric methane trends have fallen well below even the lowest range of all the IPCC scenarios. The First Assessment Report (FAR) projection has methane at 5 times the current value, and each subsequent IPCC report lowered the projection by about half each time, and they still missed it. Once again, observations trump models. Add this to the other bombshell graph from the same chapter and you have to wonder how the AGW issue continues to have any traction.
But that won’t stop scare stories like the ones below from appearing, because as we’ve noted, alarmists aren’t good at assimilating new contrary factual data in a way that mutes their zeal in spreading the alarm.
Here’s one from a couple of years ago, where naturally occurring methane from decomposition gets ignited by an activist, and Dan Miller at Berkeley turns that into climate alarm:
And yet, despite these alarming stories, according to the IPCC report showing observations versus the models in figure 1.7, atmospheric methane concentration isn’t accelerating, nor is it currently within the forecast bounds of any of the IPCC climate models.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Admad says:
December 18, 2012 at 2:40 am
Methane again? Just so much marsh gas (lol)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, If they were so worried about methane they would have us draining all the swamps. Instead if you have a bunch of %$#$ beavers move into your stream you get 40 acres of swamp and the EPA telling you you cannot trap, or shoot the Giardia infected beaver or blow the dam.
However payback is a B…h. My stream empties just upstream from the city water intake and Giardiasis (Beaver Fever) is a problem in the city according to a friend in the sanitation deptment. Since Rewilding has become the newest YUPPY fad, Giardiasis never makes the headlines and its presents and cause are subject to the usual spin. (It is human caused… Yeah right)
They also say “Giardia has no longterm health effects.” Try telling that to my friend whose gut was messed up by Giardia forty years ago and is still dealing with the problems or another friend whose little boy almost died.
Another classic case of Skeptical Science Syndrome
Where reality is perceived but never realized because the models don’t show it.
Carter says:
December 18, 2012 at 4:08 am
There could be WMD in Iraq, Dubya could have been the best president in history, Aliens and UFOs could exist, there could be a God, but we need evidence and in my opinion there is plenty for AGW!
AGW may indeed exist however, unfortunately for Alarmists, its effect cannot be distinguished from the noise in naturally-driven climate change. You are welcome to submit your “evidence” though. Who knows, perhaps it is something we’ve overlooked.
The video portion (1:35) of the 2 men igniting the methane from the ice reminded me of those scholarly videos on YouTube where those Oh-So-Smart college age students are igniting “Methane expulsions” from their “Gluteus Maximus” using a Bic Lighter. Probably the same people in both videos. The laughing sounded the same.
Therefore, based on the research from those college students, posting on YouTube for Peer Review, I would summize that the source of the methane is from decomposing matter, but not from frozen peat moss as the lecturer mentions, but from Gaia’s over-consumption of Beans and Beer. (anyone have any Beano?)
Just my observation.
Peter Miller; you still have it wrong. CH4 has one carbon atom. If you oxidize it you gget one CO2 molecule. If the concentration is 1.75 PPM , you increase the concentration of CO2 by 1.75 ppm
Carter says:
“we need evidence and in my opinion there is plenty for AGW!”
I disagree, there’s some evidence for AGW and if that was all I ever considered then I’d probably be a believer too. The problem with AGW especially CAGW is that it is not the most reasonable conclusion one can reach from ALL the available evidence. It’s kinda like phlogiston, a hypothesis that requires ever more twisting and turning of the evidence in order to maintain even the slightest hint of reasonableness.
Luckily “Natural Gas” was discovered, and due to it’s abundance, was named prior to the Eco-freaks branding efforts. But to insist that CH4 is soem form of dino-farts flies in the face of reality. Consider Saturns moon Titan with Methane clouds, liquid Methan oceans and frozen Methane polar caps. Titan has an average temperature of -100F and has NEVER been the home of dinosaurs or ferns. Earth has a continious production of hydrocarbons as described in “Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste”. The same variable fission process that regulates the baseline temperature for climate also produces by-product elemental atoms, the feedstock for “natural gas”. If humans were NOT capturing and burning large quantities of CH4 then atmospheric levels would be higher, along with the atmospheric CH4 oxidation rate. Why demonize humans for a compound that exists NATURALLY throughout our solar system ? ? ?
Carter says:
December 18, 2012 at 4:08 am
‘Note the word “could” in the last sentence. That comes from models, not observations’. WUWT, kindly stop playing semantics, with the word ‘could’! Because there are only two guarantees in life, that is taxes and death. Anything else is a could! There could be WMD in Iraq, Dubya could have been the best president in history, Aliens and UFOs could exist, there could be a God, but we need evidence and in my opinion there is plenty for AGW!
Well, there could be.
LOL
None observed so far, just as we haven’t found any that would say that there are WMD in Iraq now (but we know at one time there was), Obama could be the best president in history, we (humans) could be the only sentient life form in the universe, or that God doesn’t exist.
They are simply following the Alarmist edict set forth by Stephen Schneider in 1989 when he said:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
The “tipping point” scenario is the ultimate in scaremongering. Take the “fiscal cliff”, multiply it by 1,000 and you get the “Climate Cliff”. Of course it isn’t based on reality. It’s about as real as the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. But it gets the job done. It scares people, and people who are frightened are more compliant. And that’s OK, because Schneider said so.
John West says:
December 18, 2012 at 6:17 am
Carter says:
“we need evidence and in my opinion there is plenty for AGW!”
I disagree, there’s some evidence for AGW and if that was all I ever considered then I’d probably be a believer too.
Hey John (we were posting at essentially the same time as your post wasn’t there when I composed my previous) – isn’t there also some evidence that certain anthropogenic actions would cause atmospheric cooling, too?
In other words, overall, is what we are doing to the planet having a measureable/discernible effect (either cooling or warming) of the global atmosphere?
We think it “could”, but do we observe that it does?
Is that not the crux of the problem as posed by CAGW supporters: showing that a warming atmosphere is outside of natural cause and must be due to anthropogenic action and then showing that the major portion of that is directly related to anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
Not so much evidence of that from what I’ve read.
Carter says:
December 18, 2012 at 4:08 am
…..we need evidence and in my opinion there is plenty for AGW!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>……..
Fine show us.
All I see is a slow slide into the next glaciation with a few bumps along the way. Graph
Even your Warmist Buddies see that.
CO2 is not only a beneficial gas it is absolutely necessary for life and was running in short supply.
Seedling response to CO2 (Amount of CO2 is below each seedling.)
Oh and without CO2 you would died in short order before you starved.
Hyperventilation means you breath too quickly and take in too much oxygen. The doctor had my mother breathe in a paper bag to increase the CO2 levels and decrease the O2 when she started to hyperventilate.
CO2, O2 and H2O are critical to life on this planet and I am getting darn sick and tired of the control freaks singling out CO2 and calling it a pollutant, dangerous and whatever else. Perhaps a day in a CO2 free environment might convince them other wise. Will you be the first to volunteer to live in a CO2 free environment for a day? After all if CO2 is a pollutant then 0.00 ppb is what you want RIGHT?
I suppose it’s a rest from trumping bovines. For the moment…
[snip – try not to write when you are angry. I’m doing you a favor by snipping this. You are welcome to rephrase and resubmit. Judith Curry in comments at her place even refer to the first chart (1.4) as having a bombshell BTW – Anthony]
At around 4:28 in the Fire and Ice video, Dan Miller says that methane absorbed in the ocean makes the ocean more acidic. I’m having difficulty figuring out the chemistry of that reaction.
CodeTech says: December 17, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Are they completely unaware that natural gas used to vent, uncontrolled, from various places around the planet in very large quantities.
_________________________________
Hence there are little or no gas or oil deposits left in folded or faulted mountain ranges. Gone long ago.
[snip – I’ve snipped Mosh to give him an opportunity to rephrase that, hence I have to snip yours too. Sorry – Anthony]
@jeez This is the second order draft, meaning this is the third iteration (zero order, first order, second order). I find it odd that they’d retain an unrepresentative graph so far along in editing. What possible value could there be in having a graph that isn’t close to being what they consider representative during the editing process?
[snip – I’ve snipped Mosh to give him an opportunity to rephrase that, hence I have to snip yours too. Sorry – Anthony]
“jeez says:
December 18, 2012 at 1:33 am
This chart is obviously not final as AR4 projections would have to match the observation in 2007 as that is the starting point. And for those who wish to pile on, I’m not saying the AR4 projections are accurate, but simply that this chart cannot be representative.”
I saw you updated to 2006 as paper cutoff. You are correct, but a paper published in 2006 may have been submitted in 2005 and may only be using data up to 2003. But I agree, this looks like the data from 2000 match AR4 and that seems a few years at least out of date.
Anthony, I think Stephen Mosher is bent out of shape as a result of his schoolboy English and the number of comments he receives on articles on his blog:
October 8: 0
November 10: 1
December 5: 0
REPLY: No I don’t think it is that. There’s other issues, part of which is the influence of being on the BEST team, where he’s been exposed to a lot of groupthink for quite awhile. I think it has put him into an internal conundrum. – Anthony
So they are again stirring up alarm about thawing of Siberian permafrost. But there are scientists in Siberia monitoring the situation. What do they say?
“Indeed above at the surface it has gotten warmer, but that’s just part of a normal cycle. The permafrost is rock hard, And that is how it is going to stay. There’s no talk of thawing.” Michali Grigoryev
http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/19/russian-arctic-scientist-permafrost-changes-due-to-natural-factors-its-going-to-be-colder/
“It seems that the permafrost should be melting if the temperature is rising. However, many areas are witnessing the opposite. The average annual temperature is getting higher, but the permafrost remains and has even started to spread. Why? An important factor is the snow cover. Global warming reduces it, therefore making the heat insulator for the permafrost thinner. Then even weak frosts are enough to freeze the ground deeper below the surface.”
Nikolai Osokin is a glaciologist at the Institute of Geography, the Russian Academy of Sciences.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070323/62485608.html
“The Russian Academy of Sciences has found that the annual temperature of soils (with seasonable variations) has been remaining stable despite the increased average annual air temperature caused by climate change. If anything, the depth of seasonal melting has decreased slightly.”
“This is just another scare story . . . This ecological structure is balanced and is not about to harm people with gas discharges.”
Vladimir Melnikov is the director of the world’s only Institute of the Earth’s Cryosphere. The Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute is located in the Siberian city of Tyumen and investigates the ways in which ground water becomes ice and permafrost.
“The boundaries of the Russian permafrost zone remain virtually unchanged. At the same time, the permafrost is several hundred meters deep. For methane, other gases and hydrates to escape to the surface, it would have to melt at tremendous depths, which is impossible.”
Yuri Izrael, director of the Institute of Climatology and Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605-print.html
Whenever I hear about the methane release from frozen climes, due to the concern of AGW, I have to wonder where do these people think the organic matter came from to release to methane? It was in situ, when the earth was much warmer, and the warmth of today pales in contrast.
OMG IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!
What you skeptic Luddites fail to realize is that the lower than projected methane release trend line simply means that there is more COMMITTED methane release in the pipeline! WE ARE DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY.
Slightly OT but the graph reminded me: last night on the History Channel, there was some ‘climate scientist’ (nobody I recognized) saying that the earth has warmed more than any of the models ever predicted.
I still have yet to see any vast evidence of any sort of general melt down of permafrost. All we get are anecdotes of things seen at road cuts, building sites and other disturbed areas. Where’s the beef?