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.
“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.” No, No,No! This is not science it is wishful thinking and based on assumptions, dogma and faith. Science has little or nothing to do with faith simply a different logic system. The IPCC’s propaganda however has much to do with faith and wishful thinking. Anything to get attention and obfuscate the facts.
This Figure 1.7 at top is similar to Figure 1.4 found on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/ My first reading was that they were two views of the same parameter, but I see that 1.7’s y axis is CH4 concentration and 1.4’s is Temp anamally.
My base confusion remains, however. Why doesn’t Fig. 1.4 originate the model uncertainty wedges at publication date (as does Fig. 1.7)?
Instead, Figure 1.4 shows TAR and AR4 uncertainty wedges going back to 1990 (10 and 15 years prior to their publication). The reason for that has escaped me. Perhaps the authors of AR5 are so enamored and well practiced at revising history they just couldn’t help themselves?
Gail Combs…sign me up for your anti-beaver crusade. Here in Ottawa you can see lots of examples of environmental damage caused by the growing population of beavers (thanks to reduced trapping and predator populations).
An OT but humorous anecdote: earlier this year a beaver moved into one of the drainage ponds, that are a mandated part of all new housing developments, and started to dam up the drain. The city sent out someone to trap it before it turned the drainage pond into a permanent lake and floods the neighborhood. He is setting the trap when one of the local stay-at-home moms comes by and asks him what is going to happen to it. Unfortunately he tells the truth (they are going to put it down) and explains why (it will just come back) — mom freaks out, her kids love the beaver, threatens to call the papers, prime minister, etc. He stops what he is doing and it takes weeks for the s&*t storm to die down and they can get rid of it.
John Who says:
”isn’t there also some evidence that certain anthropogenic actions would cause atmospheric cooling, too? “
Of course, there’s “some” evidence for almost anything.
”what we are doing to the planet having a measureable/discernible effect (either cooling or warming) of the global atmosphere?”
I don’t know, but IMO based on all the evidence I’ve seen it’s very likely we’ve had very little actual effect on the climate. I would characterize it as barely discernable.
”We think it “could”, but do we observe that it does?”
I agree with you that there’s a prominent lack of observable evidence beyond the noise of climate variation of most metrics. I try to be as gentile as I can with people who’ve probably only been exposed to the information from the alarmist perspective. For example, they know CO2 has increased and temperature has increased and have been told this correlation is solid (cough, cough) evidence of AGW. It is evidence but hardly solid and de-correlating every year we go without continued warming; de-correlation being solid evidence against AGW even though correlation is weak evidence for AGW.
”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.”
Yea, not so much evidence from what I’ve read either, but it’s only the “crux of the problem” to us skeptics that require more than circumstantial evidence before making up our minds.
Perhaps we should “frack” the permafrost. Certainly easier than drilling all the way to the Marcellus shale. 🙂
I like to put things in a context I can understand. Methane at 1800 ppb is the same concentration as 9 people in the city of Dallas/Ft. Worth TX — population of around 5 million. Lets say there is a swarm of locusts (heat) passing through DFW and these 9 folks are killing (absorbing) them as fast at they can with swatters, bug spray, even the dreaded DDT. Any real affect? The same analogy can be applied to CO2 at 380 ppm. That corresponds to 30 of the 80,000 fans in Cowboy Stadium trying to make some kind of impact on the locusts passing through the stadium. To me it is like saying that p…ing in the ocean will raise the sea level. “Merde de toro” as a friend of mine from France once translated a popular expression. If I am wrong, I welcome an explanation.
Mosh:
What made you a bit angry is a result of Skeptical Science Syndrome. This happens when empirical data, once established, continues to be modified to cloud the Scientific Process.
When you know in your heart that physics is still an established science, yet it is being severely distorted by the use of unconfirmed models.
We know that the Stratosphere is not cooling, the tropical hot spot has not appeared, storms have not become more powerful and frequent, droughts have not become more frequent, cereal grain production has not declined……the list is oh so long.
We also know that the current rise in temperature is well within the confines of the Holocene period in total. We know that Arctic Sea Ice has had similar contractions in the past as present, we know that the late 20th century warming is nothing exceptional. We know that no one can explain the early 20th century warming, lots of theory, but no certainty in results.
We know that could is a word used widely. I could hit the lottery tomorrow and be rich. I could stay in bed and do nothing today. I could…….I could.
We know that TSI has been relatively constant for centuries. Can’t explain the early 20th century warming with that metric. We know a lot of things, and we don’t know a lot of things in ref to climate.
What we do know is empirical data. Sir Frederick William Herschel showed there is a connection between climate and cereal production. We know from river flow data that there is a very strong influence from the sun in precipitation patterns. We also know that CH4 did not tip the climate scale during periods of extended warmth greater than today earlier in the Holocene.
We also know that the news is bombarded with stupid in regards to AGW/GAWG. Absolutely no basis in fact, but based once again on the mythical model of could.
This creates anxiety in folks, most who are not involved in production agriculture. Who live in cities, surrounded by steel, concrete, etc. They are not able to actually observe reality in a natural setting.
Folks see the destruction of a storm like Sandy, yet fail to remember that the Long Island Express was a much more severe storm. They hear that it must be caused by CO2, yet the literature shows it isn’t.
There has been a preponderance of such outlandish claims, untruth after untruth, that it becomes hard to ignore from a city. Yet, out in the country, we know temps have not changed much, weather has not changed much, grow lines have not changed much. In a climatic sense, not much has really changed as we observe it every day.
There are gaps wide enough to sail the Titanic through in ref to the AGW theory. When AGW proponents continue to push for fantasy, with a steady drumbeat, it is hard not to get caught up in the anxiety of it all.
Maybe it is time to get out of the city for a couple of weeks, ground your feet back in reality. Understand again just how extremely complex our climate system really is and feel at peace.
Obviously excessive self loathing and fear of the weather causes mental faculties to shut down, the best answer to the great methane fear of 2012, Robyn Williams, Go Brown.
as a 2nd, Monty Python, I fart in your general direction, from the holy grail.
But to all the wailing about the weather folk, Tiny Tim’s, The Ice Caps are Melting, captures the tone best. Produced 1960 and still the song and dance goes on.
I do not care how “good” their intentions are, the results speak clearly, this is eugenics hiding behind save the world.
My evidence, the activists are almost uniformly rich caucasians, the victims poor nonwhite persons. Who are not worthy of affordable electricity, refrigeration, clean water and all the things sheltered western children take for granted.
And when I argue with the “saviours ” as their logic fails (it always does), the retreat is always the same, “well there’s too many people on the planet….” .
Eugenics, To better the race, selective breeding and kill the unfit. Central planning, for the good of the human race. The reason the enviro’s look like 1930 Germans.
Just another wave of unreason, mob hysteria, but sneakily the beast has tried, once again, to pretend to be science and reason.
But there is no way to hide the stench. Of we have to lie to you for your own good.
FAO A Watts
‘REPLY: The real issue is: is there any evidence for a methane induced tipping point? Show your work – Anthony’
Well we know in the past there has been a ‘run away hothouse Earth’, if methane played a part, I know not, but suspect it did. So there has been at least a co2 tipping point, otherwise we would still be in a ‘snowball Earth’!
Tale of two moons.
Titan and Hyperion, locked in harmonically resonate orbits around Saturn, same distance from the sun.
TItan is a planet in it’s own right, with a weather system made up of methane, evaporating, condensing, and raining out into lakes of liquid. Five percent of the atmosphere is made up of methane, the rest is nitrogen. Surface temperature is about 93 degrees Kelvin (-180 C, -292 F).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)
Hyperion is more like a captured asteroid, with no atmosphere. Just a chunk of rock floating in space with it’s rotation periodically altered by Titan’s gravity field. No air whatsoever.
Surface temperature about 93 degrees Kelvin, (-180 C, -292 F).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(moon)
Comparison between Titan and Hyperion shows without a room for a doubt that Methane has absolutely no green house effect at all.
Anyone says otherwise is blowing smoke.
Peter Miller says: December 18, 2012 at 5:04 am
Carter says: “but we need evidence and in my opinion there is plenty for AGW!”
It may surprise you to know that most people reading WUWT would agree with the above statement.
===================================================================
But in fact, there is not “plenty” of evidence for AGW. The whole AGW construct is theory supported by argument only, and has been refuted by the last sixteen years. It is more accurate to say that there is NO evidence for AGW. Attribution to CO2 of the warming trend of 1977-97 is simply a bald assertion. Those who disagree need to support their point of view with evidence but they have none to show.
FAO papiertigre
But it goes on to say
‘This atmospheric methane conversely creates a greenhouse effect on Titan’s surface, without which Titan would be far colder’
Yet you say
‘Comparison between Titan and Hyperion shows without a room for a doubt that Methane has absolutely no green house effect at all’
I like to quantify things. Methane, with a concentration of 1.75 ppm, would be 0.00444 of the amount of CO2, but because it is 20 times as powerful, its effect is 0.0888 times as much as CO2. Now according to RSS, the slope for the last 16 years, since December 1996, is flat. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend
That means the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been 0 according to RSS over the last 16 years. And since the effect of CH4 is 0.0888 times as much as CO2, then according to my calculations, the effect of the CH4 is 0.0888 x 0 = 0.
If anyone would like me to calculate the effect of any other greenhouse gas over the last 16 years according to RSS, I would be happy to do so.
[ Carter says:
December 18, 2012 at 8:43 am
So there has been at least a co2 tipping point, otherwise we would still be in a ‘snowball Earth’! ]
So why aren’t we as hot as Venus. Tipping point means point of no return. You’re living in Logical Fallacy La-La Land.
FAO mpainter
‘But in fact, there is not “plenty” of evidence for AGW. ‘
Well watch this and the link in the description.
Carter says:
December 18, 2012 at 8:43 am
Well we know in the past there has been a ‘run away hothouse Earth’, if methane played a part, I know not, but suspect it did. So there has been at least a co2 tipping point, otherwise we would still be in a ‘snowball Earth’!
1) If such a “C02 tipping point” existed, then why are we not still in a “runaway hothouse earth” climate?
2) Are you seriously comparing today’s Modern climate, which only began about 5 million years ago, with Ice Age cycles only starting about 2 million years ago with that of the Permian period some 250 million years ago?
I thought not.
Carter
you need to get some education. You need to learn the difference between argument and evidence and what constitutes acceptable evidence and what the term “bald assertion” means. You do not seem to understand what constitutes robust science nor how that contrasts with dubious science. Nor do you peceive how propaganda is being palmed off as science, to be swallowed by the gullible.You have swallowed the AGW wholly and uncritically. Please also keep in mind that climate study embraces all of the natural sciences, and a viewpoint based on the theory of radiation physics is a woefully inadequate view. Above all,you need to stop listening to the panic-talk and learn to think for yourself. Thank you for your attention.
The methane crisis is worse than you think: cattle flatulence is going to kill our grandchildren
You don’t believe me? Just dial up cattle/methane on the web and see. Responses 1.7 million and rising.
Oh, Carter, run see if you can fetch us a video on this. There is bound to be one somewhere.
TonyG says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:33 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are talking about the Holocene Optimum
graph 1
graph 2
/sarc
Carter says:
December 18, 2012 at 9:46 am
Well watch this and the link in the description.
———————————-
Sounds like you believed Richard Alley’s presentation. The problem is, he did not use the actual data of CO2 levels versus temperature history. He was talking about some imaginary data. He kept saying “we’re getting really close”. Close as in missing it by a mile.
Mike says:
December 18, 2012 at 8:14 am
….. mom freaks out, her kids love the beaver, threatens to call the papers, prime minister, etc. He stops what he is doing and it takes weeks for the s&*t storm to die down and they can get rid of it.
_______________________________________
They just need to let the beaver stay and then point to the Mom who insisted on it when the neighbors want to sue, saying SUE HER. The city should make her legally libel in writing BEFORE hand in return for the promise to leave the beaver alone. (I am really really sick to death of the The Bambi Syndrome )
I should think it would be obvious to any student of “systems controls” what the pattern painted by the various charts of historic climate model predictions versus reality actually indicates. It indicates that the climate system feedback to “forcing” is “negative” (less than one unit of response to one unit of forcing). Common sense should have told us that it had to be that way. Otherwise the climate system would have long since run completely off the tracks in one direction or the other.
The heart and soul of AGW hysteria rests on “positive feedback” to CO2 temperature forcing. That is what the climate models are programmed to simulate and that is why they have so miserably failed. When all the intricate feedback factors you have programmed into a model indicate “cumulative positive feedback” and that model represents a chaotic system that has existed for eons as it periodically and methodically cycled between upper and lower temperature boundaries even while suffering horrific terrestrial and extraterrestrial forcing events, you just have to know you’ve screwed up.
Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire.
Sorry could not resist.
Anthony, whether they get around to fixing it or not, it is still not representative of projections for AR4. One doesn’t make a projection for future behavior with the starting point wrong to begin with.