Over a course of 12 days Dr. Giuliana Panieri and her colleagues from Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate (CAGE) collected images from seven areas of known methane release in the Arctic Ocean. One of them was Vestnesa Ridge, with over 1000 active seep sites at the depth of over 1000 m.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas stored in the ocean floor in unknown quantities. CAGE is a centre dedicated to assessing the amount of methane stored in these reservoirs, and what impact the methane in the Arctic Ocean may have for ocean environment and climate change. Main focus of the research is gas hydrate, a methane trapped in a solid structure that resembles ice.
Panieri collaborated with scientists and engineers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s MISO Deep-Sea Imaging Facility. The aim was to get a proper view of the deep Arctic Ocean floor.
“We have taken so many samples all over these areas, but we were sampling blind. We needed to see what was going on down there.” says Panieri who is an awe of the results achieved during the two-week cruise.
The system that was used to get these images is based on the ‘TowCam’ design developed by WHOI scientists and engineers, and funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. It consists of a color still camera that takes images every 10-15 seconds.
“This is the first time that we have seen these methane seeps in the deep Arctic Ocean areas. The images are amazing.” says Panieri.
The midnight sun allowed for the tow cam system to be deployed 24/7 providing scientist with data that will be crucial in new discoveries in years to come.
###
Why is it a “cruise” and not an “expedition”? Slip of the tongue?
If a cruise, I guess they paid to go along with it.
I Guess. NB.
I pay for my Cruises. I am sure they do.
Auto – 40 years in shipping . . .
The difference between a cruise and an expedition is that an expedition doesn’t have an open bar.
The way they rant about GHG’s you would think there was.
It makes you wonder why NASA’s OCO-2 and the coming OCO-3 are spending mega-bucks on CO2, a minor gas compared to methane.
Speaking of which, does anyone know what has happened to the CO2 maps generated from OCO2 data?
NASA still has the map for last November as the only one on its image wall. Are there problems with the satellite or with the political acceptability of the images that it is producing?
Yes. they have some problems. Their last update is they expect to be publishing data mid-June to mid-July
It has to be adjusted. Nothing is as it might seem or will be or has been or something. As long as the adjustments fit political reality. It has to be peer reviewed before release.
Old’un commented: “…does anyone know what has happened to the CO2 maps generated from OCO2 data?”
I’ve been wondering the same thing. The original output/data representation is gone. It showed very regionalized concentrations of CO2 and not all where you would expect it to be. Africa and South America were awash in CO2 if I remember correctly and since you can’t ask them to cut their energy fossil fuel use much I’m sure it was an inconvenient truth. Most likely they are waiting until the data can be homogenized to their liking before another release. Another release of accurate/real data that doesn’t fit the program is unacceptable I’m sure.
“Speaking of which, does anyone know what has happened to the CO2 maps generated from OCO2 data?”
The usual suspects are homogenising them to get the data to agree with the models, of course. There was a very considerable discrepancy.
Here’s the instrumental data:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/mainco2mappia18934.jpg
Here’s the NASA model. Compare the corresponding period with the OCO2 data.
Totally unacceptable!
Yes and it makes one wonder about the approval for Shell oil drilling in the Arctic.
Especially given this:
“[R]elease of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time” – Shakhova et al. (2008)
Per EPA’s calculator, that’s the CO2 equivalent of 2.9T barrels of oil – 88 years of global consumption at current rates.
If by “highly possible”, Shakhova means “highly speculative, exaggerated, and ridiculous bullshit”, then I agree.
It may make “one” wonder, but one is a very lonely number. Most of the rest of the several billion of us are not wondering this.
Let me clarify.
The U.S. President has approved drilling in the Arctic. Drilling could potentially precipitate a grave climate crisis that vastly dwarfs the theoretical harm from the future warming which justifies the proposed draconian climate policies. I wonder at the inconsistency.
It’s becoming a game of a chicken with the drivers racing to a four-way intersection. Somebody has likely miscalculated. Maybe you.
“Highly possible?” Is that close to “slightly probable?” https://www.google.com/search?q=“highly+possible” isn’t much help.
Nothing “major” about methane. Look at the planet’s emission spectrum: a tiny dent where methane should be. They get this “ferocious methane” meme by adding its tiny natural effect to the CO2 effect and the water effect that comes from burning the methane. But methane doesn’t combust in the atmosphere: the only way it can be burnt is by being hit by lightning – which usually happens during thunderstorms when the water is pouring out of the sky by the megatonne, and the converted water just falls out along with the rest. So, methane: yet another casualty of truth in the hands of the alarmists.
Yup.
Here tell that high levels of methane in the air make for some very interesting lightning displays in Venezuela. So other than a colorful curiosity in a few remote locations, not an issue.
The sky is not on fire.
Ron,
Methane is oxidized in the higher troposphere by OH-radicals and ozone (thanks to UV-light). The decay rate is ~10 years half life time. Without a continuous supply from swamps, ocean floor and agriculture (rice fields) / methane leaks, it would be gone completely in ~50 years.
Untrue. Methane has a GWP of roughly 80 (depending on the time frame used to evaluate its GWP), whereas CO2 is the reference = 1.0.
However, there’s far more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane, so CO2 is a more important greenhouse gas in terms of its effect on Climate.
Atmospheric CO2 and Methane have each seen more than a 40% increase since 1750.
Interesting. Facts and logic, not a whif of appeal to authority to be found. Who are you and what did you do with poor warrenlb?
Do you have any sources for CO2 and Methane increasing in the atmosphere since 1750? Is there real measured data for both gasses over all that time period?
Can you please give us your evidence for the assertion that CO2 has important effects on climate?
Seems to be that proposition is very much in doubt these days.
Although it does seem to have cause amazing diminution in the ability of many people to reason logically, and to insist on evidence before believing a thing to be true.
As warrenlb said:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_ch4.jpg
The resolution of the Law Dome DSS core is ~20 years, but spans ~1000 years while the DE08 and DE08-2 cores have a resolution of ~10 years but only span 150 years back in time.
Recent data are from New Zealand (Cape Grim), but also other stations show a recent slowing down of the CH4 emissions/level in the atmosphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
which also shows that besides a seasonal component, the main CH4 levels increase in the NH first.
Is anyone suggesting that the atmospheric methane increase is human?
gymnosperm,
The previous intergacial, the Eemian, was certainly warmer than today, and specifically in the Arctic with trees growing up to the Arctic Ocean on Alaska’s North Slope. The CH4 levels then were around 700 ppbv. Current levels increased after 1850 (and slightly before that – increased rice cultivating), not by coincidence after the start of the industrial revolution.
We are currently above 1800 ppbv…
Dr. Shakova has concluded that current large releases of methane from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are due to the mid-Holocene warming from ~8000 years ago. In one interview, iirc, she seemed exasperated that people’s interest is tied to whether or not the cause of the methane releases can be linked to the current warming pulse – i.e. human caused.
Good stuff, warrenllb. Now show us what it does to our heat budget, and how.
According to the IPCC, the global-warming potential of methane is 23, not 80, against 1 for CO2. However, the atmospheric concentration of methane has risen at well below even the least estimates in all four previous IPCC reports, so it is not proving to be anything like as much of a problem as the IPCC had suggested.
Interesting. Luckily, methane conc.’s in atmosphere having been growing much more slowly
than predicted over the last 25 years.
It makes you wonder what an ocean cycle can do to alter this flow rate, if any.
Might it be heat transfer? Where is the heat to convert the hydrates to gas?
Gas hydrates decomposition is accompanied by heat absorption of high specific enthalpy reaching 0.5 MJ/kg (for example, melting heat of ice is 0.34 MJ/kg). Therefore, the simple lowering pressure above gas hydrate below the equilibrium point, or rising the temperature above the equilibrium appear to be insufficient for achievement of sustained hydrates dissociation. Sustainable phase transformation in this system needs continuous heat supply. In natural conditions, gas hydrate dissociation is driven by heat accumulated within the reservoir combined with heat influx from the surrounding rock mass. However, the latter is usually negligible, thus the in-situ gas hydrate dissociation should be basically endothermic (i.e. comprising a heat absorption process).
http://gasoilpress.com/dgir/dgir_detailed_work.php?DGIR_ELEMENT_ID=283&WORK_ELEMENT_ID=5641
So melting 0.5 kg of hydrates will freeze 1.47 kg of water? They still do not know thermodynamics or why the rate is never going to be catastrophic.
Maybe this is the global ocean thermostatic mechanism – Trenberth’s missing heat arriving in the deep ocean causes the release of methane from hydrates thereby causing immediate cooling.
Possibly, we can use methane release by the oceans as a proxy for global ocean warming/cooling?
DD, you might want to read the article that you referenced a little closer. Hydrates have a trigger temperature and in the process referenced, heat is being supplied to raise the gas hydrate to that temperature. When the temperature is reached, 9 joules of energy are released for each joule required to raise the temperature. There is a high school chemistry experiment where a thermometer is placed in a beaker of water and table salt, sodium chloride, is added to the water. The water cools as the sodium chloride goes into solution, the water molecules are forming bonds with the chlorine and sodium ions. Energy is required to form the bonds and that energy is removed from the water causing its temperature to be lower. When gas hydrates are formed, energy is removed from water and the temperature is lowered. When the temperature of the gas hydrate reaches its trigger temperature, the energy is released. Oil companies with deep oil wells have trouble with methane and water in the form of moisture getting into their pipes and forming a hydrate and freezing up the pipe.
“Possibly, we can use methane release by the oceans as a proxy for global ocean warming/cooling?”
Billy, I love this one 🙂
We better get down there with concrete and plug them shut…
Then the pressure builds up and the plugs will turn into concrete bullets penetrating oil tankers and causing oil slicks that will then be eaten by bacteria … Oh the Organics of it all.
Now I know why my parents added salt to the ice when making ice cream in a hand cranked container housed in a wooden bucket holding the ice.
Luckily, methane has a pretty short half-life in the atmosphere.
It oxidizes into CO2 and water.
Methane’s GWP over 100 years is still 29 times that of CO2, so it’s a much more potent greenhouse gas per unit mass, even after 100 years, vs CO2.
This says methane is only 20 times more powerful than Co2 and has only 8 years residence time, so your conclusion is not possible with those factors.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2C2.html
@patmcguinness
The article in your link says: “While its atmospheric concentration is much less than that of carbon dioxide, methane is 20 times more effective at trapping infrared radiation! ”
The quote is indefinite –it doesn’t say over what time period the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 is evaluated .. in fact it doesn’t even use the scientific term GWP. So I can only assume it is referring to the 100 year GWP of methane –which is actually 29 times that of CO2, and 34 with carbon-climate feedbacks included. (This means that one of the by products of CH4 decay is CO2 –which has a much longer lifetime.)
I believe the answer to your question is that CH4 decays and one of its byproducts is CO2 –which continues on for hundreds of years.
Warren, when I fiirst researched methane in 2003, I found that its anthropogenic fingerprint was lost in natural variation. That still holds. It is also true that we cannot find the proposed ghg fingerprint, and what was a 32yr warming cycle is now an early cooling one. About the stage we were around 1958, which year I remember well.
Great. We need much more CO2 and water.
Vonbroks,
Deep methane seeps are oxidized by microbes as they rise and the resultant CO2 is either absorbed by the oceans or escapes to the atmosphere as shown by the OCO2 satellite map.
Let’s not be too jaded.
Making observations of the real world is part one of real science.
damn….biology is hard…..chemical biology is harder
Methane will not reach the surface from that depth…..bacteria will eat it all
…if the methane increases…the bacteria increases
Well for God’s sake, Latitude, don’t put that in the grant proposal!
Much of the methane will immediately form a hydrate. We have the example of the problem that deep ocean oil wells have with methane and moisture forming hydrates and freezing up the pipes.
“Methane is a potent greenhouse gas”
Methane is said to be a potent greenhouse gas. I doubt it does any more or less than CO2 which is to say … cools on net.
Besides the above; the venting of said gas is not a new thing. It has not killed us all yet. 🙂
The ultimate goal, of course, is “saving the planet”. But sometimes, despite themselves, and their best efforts to prevent it, some actual science occurs.
And the atmospheric methane concentration is what, <2 ppbv?
1.76 PPM, I believe.
And the reason methane is such a potent green house gas is exactly what?
Observations from spectroscopy – same as our knowledge of CO2.
Of course, if there are negative feedbacks in the natural world they won’t be known.
But molecule for molecule, the effect of methane is greater than CO2; regardless of what happens next.
MCourtney June 24, 2015 at 2:10 pm
…Observations from spectroscopy … molecule for molecule, the effect of methane is greater than CO2;…
Do you have a link to back that up?
It’s not. Here’s a plot of the absorbances of atmospheric gasses.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3758743/AtmosphericTransmission.pdf
Note that methane is minor and its strongest peak at 8 um is swallowed by water vapor. At ppbv it’s less than a thousandth of the concentration of CO2. Even if it’s completely converted to CO2 and H2O the additional increase of CO2 is going to be immeasurable.
Anyone care to speculate why the greenhouse fanatics dodge the issue of the GWP for water vapour?
No scientist dodges the fact that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. It’s just not increasing globally, whereas CO2 , the 2nd largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, is increasing (up over 40% since 1750 due to the burning of fossil fuels.)
These substantial increases in CO2, as well as the similar increases in methane, nitrous oxides, sf6 and the halocarbons, are responsible for the warming of the climate during the industrial era.
Except, the earth was already warming before any of those gases started to rise significantly in concentration.
love that CO2
@schitzree
The sharp increase in the rate of global temperature rise began well after the rise in man -caused GHG emissions beginning circa 1750.
warrenlb June 24, 2015 at 6:02 pm
No scientist dodges the fact that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. It’s just not increasing globally
Ah, thanks for that warrenlb. You forgot to add that this fact is in direct opposition to the theory endorsed by climate scientists which rests on positive feedback due to increasing water vapour, which, as you have pointed out, isn’t increasing.
@dmh
Good catch. To be more accurate I should have said “Water vapor presence in the atmosphere is only increasing very slowly (global mean trend is +1.2% per decade) and only as a result of the AGW-induced warming of the planet, since water vapor presence in air is primarily a function of air temperature (by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship).
@WarrenLib
If the mean trend is 1.2% per decade, why did temperatures increase in the 1880-1940s, decrease until the 70s, increase until the 90s, and stay stagnant since the early 2000s? If the trendline is up, like CO2, why has the effect massively varied for the last 100+ years?
Additionally, how do you account for the fact that the trend in water vapor hasn’t increased while CO2 concentration has significantly increased since 2000?
warrenlb June 25, 2015 at 5:17 am
Water vapor presence in the atmosphere is only increasing very slowly (global mean trend is +1.2% per decade) and only as a result of the AGW-induced warming of the planet, since water vapor presence in air is primarily a function of air temperature
OK, so first you said water vapour wasn’t increasing at all, now you say it is and that it is due to AGW induced warming of the air temperatures. Would that be the air temperatures that the satellites have found not to be warming for close to 20 years? How does one attribute cause and effect when the cause cannot be measured? Don’t quote surface records at me, the GHE is active at altitude, exactly where the satellites measure.
“These substantial increases in CO2, as well as the similar increases in methane, nitrous oxides, sf6 and the halocarbons, are responsible for the warming of the climate during the industrial era.”
And the similar and even more extreme “warming of the climate” before the industrial era?
Nice .pdf of GHGs. Here’s one many have seen. It includes the Earth’s longwave radiation.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png/595px-Atmospheric_Transmission.png
I think one reason for the relative awesomeness of CH4 is that it’s IR windows aren’t saturated.
This has a nice graph:
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/methane-emissions-in-context
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/AGGI.gif
The leaks over natural gas reservoirs on land are largely natural, too. There is a sniffer device for detecting it for exploration purposes, too. What this tells us is that basically methane (at under 2 ppm) is totally harmless and has been a factor in the atmosphere for millions of years. When I worked in northern Canada on geological surveys it was a “magic” trick to play on junior assistants to tramp hard on a “floating” bog and light a match to give a blast of bluish flame.
This was in the 1950s before this nonsense was ever thought of. And here we are worrying about cattle farts!!! I wonder how many cattle the seeps across the Arctic represent in their certain millions. The 1.7ppm is probably near a level where oxidation converts it to CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere, maybe a thunderstorm does this quickly. You have to be under 40 to not think you live in a totally crazy world.
Talking about cattle farts, years ago we nearly eliminated Buffaloes and now apparently these days also Caribou and wild life on the African continent . Does that not offset the increase of methane (although those declining animal populations are bad things and to me a direct result of lack of help to those countries that would benefit from cheap energy and would not be forced to hunt for them).
Oh no. Global warming is worse than we thought. The warming of the oceans, (or is it acidification, or perhaps fracking, I forget which argument-du-jour was supposed to be used today), is causing cracks in the ocean floor allowing methane to escape which is going to lead to more runaway warming temperatures. We’ve passed the tipping point! Stop all carbon emissions now or we are doomed! Sorry, some days my sarcasm about the CAGW claims gets carried away.
“And here we are worrying about cattle farts!!!”
Yeah – what about goats? They emit cabron dioxide – a potent casa verde gas!
Natural gas forms deep in the earth and rises to the surface around the earth excepting where the shield is near the surface. The amount that perks through the topsoil, in the presence of adequate moisture, determines the richness of the topsoil.
In the topsoil, aerobic microbes consume the gas, use the hydrogen for energy, and excrete CO2.
Top soil contains 10 times the amount of co2 found in the air. Farmers do add liquid co2 to their fields.
Liquid CO2?
Under what atmospheric pressures do these farmers add liquid CO2? And why?
Maybe he meant, er, solid CO2? Dry Ice spreaders might be an interesting farming practice. ^¿^
yes, liquid CO2. Under pressure, obviously. It seems that it somehow makes sense
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
They don’t add CO2 to open fields (where it is blown away in seconds with some wind, that is completely uneconomical), they only supply CO2 (as gas) into greenhouses up to ~1000 ppmv. The source could be liquid CO2, but that is vaporized before injecting in the greenhouse.
What also happens in winter is that they use a combination of heat, light and CO2 from a combustion motor / electro group to heat, illuminate and supply CO2 in the greenhouse…
Mulching (adding organic waste between the crops) enhances local CO2 in greenhouses but also in open fields and makes a better soil and better water management.
That’s not true I have absolutely seen it applied when harrowing a field in Indiana. The white and green rectangle clearly said liquid co2 running from the tank on top of the tractor to lines running to the disks. Besides you will loose this argument as I have won it before. Your assumptions are not squared with reality.
I think you mean liquid NH3. http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-management/nitrogen/using-anhydrous-ammonia-safely-on-the-farm/
I think that was quoted in PEI on work with the uptake heavy metals due to an increase in co2. It turns out it didn’t. Although Consumer Reports that some rice grown has elevated levels of arsenic and amounts of rice servings per week should be limited. I don’t make this stuff up.
> yes, liquid CO2. Under pressure, obviously. It seems that it somehow makes sense
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
I searched for every reference to liquid in that page and all I see are references to storage and lines like “The compressed CO2 is in a liquid state and must be vaporised through vaporiser units.” I see no references to direct liquid application.
I have seen it applied directly in the fields of Indiana.
“I look at the world, and I’m glad it’s not burning
While methane gas slowly seeps
With every new grant, they pretend they are learning
While methane gas slowly seeps…”
+1
@ur momisugly Auric Exceptional!
Groovy, baby! Yeah!
and from the office that brought you “children will not know what snow is”….a mere 10 years ago….
…that same MET office brings you……….ICE AGE
Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens ‘little Ice Age’
BRITAIN could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new “little ice age” in the next few decades.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity
just like mediums
“has someone in the audience just lost a close family member, I’m feeling the letter ‘M’ ”
jes keep tossin’ stuff out yer bound hit something
So Britain is… the world??
warrenlb:
Britain is part of the world.
Much of the world – including Britain – is said to be facing “colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new “little ice age” in the next few decades”.
So much for GLOB AL warming.
Richard
It used to be. Almost.
We’re having trouble adjusting to our new situation.
It seems to me the data shows the world is 1.4F warmer than in about 1880, and 9 of the 10 warmest years on record were set after 2000. How can someone with your claims to a scientific background make such a ridiculous post?
@warrenlib
Those temperature “Records” are thousandths of a degree – we don’t measure reliably to thousandths of a degree. The “hottest year on record!” claims are statistical noise.
You don’t get to claim that one year the “record” was 14.71C average and then claim the next year that a “new record” was set at 14.72C and then claim that these are data points that prove anything, especially when the margin of error is several tenths of a degree. That’s not science.
@arsten
An 18 year slowdown in the rate of warming does not ‘Disprove’ AGW anymore than the same 18 year gradual rise ‘proves’ AGW, nor did I claim it did. If you trace back the thread, my citing of the record was in response to richardscourtneys ridiculous claim that it somehow ‘disproved’ AGW.
@warrenlb
You made a claim about “Data” and then a claim about “records.” Those were the two claims you made. You then made a disparaging remark, which while not saying “proved” certainly implied, that Richard S Courtney was wrong. I said nothing about proving or disproving AGW, I was specifically speaking about your attempts to disprove Richard S Courtney.
Your data claim is about correct, depending upon your chosen data set and I did not address it. Your “records” claim is a fallacy and not scientifically based and I did address it.
Now that you have decided to deride me for your own failure to understand my point, I will point out specifically that Richard S Courtney made a specific claim about some predictions of the future as an anonymous aggregate of other sources, which your points do not address. The world climate relies on specific parameters and boundaries for the climate, most of which are unknown or woefully misunderstood by science. His aggregate restatement of those predictions are not refuted by the historical data nor by the “record temperature” fallacy you presented.
@ur momisugly Lattide: “Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens ‘little Ice Age”
What a crock that statement is the “slump” is part of the natural solar cycle and right now heading for a minimum. Is it deeper one, like the Maunder minimum? That only time will tell but to call it a slump is just ignorant by the MET office! But I guess any excuse will do these days. Thanks for the link though.
is there any possibility to capture and burns this? it might be useful in the next few decades.
Huh! My shift key is slow…
Of course Saturn has an entire moon filled with methane and though energy from the sun is greatly diminished, one would expect some increase in temperature if the whole greenhouse theory had a leg to stand on. Instead the molecule is in liquid form. Oceans of it failing to provide that “feedback mechanism” that we hear so much about.
Where did you read that this moon refutes the greenhouse effect?
Do greenhouses warm? Yet put one on that moon and no one expects the temperature to be above freezing, but the greenhouse behavior is still there.
Dawtgtomis,
The best way to capture it is while it in it’s zone of stability.
Japan is working on methods to retrieve hydrates and the US has done research into capture with BP
on Alaska’s North Slope.
Hydrates are an enormous source of energy which will be tapped when the price is right.
Fascinating! Here’s the .gov perspective:
http://energy.gov/fe/methane-hydrate-field-studies
By the way, warren lb (or anyone), what do the thousands of peer reviewed papers have to say about this subject?
A lot. You’ll find it those papers.
There’s over 200 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as methane, so methane, although more potent per unit mass, has the lesser effect.
Here is a link to summary writeup on the relative climate forcing of methane vs CO2 and other drivers of climate. It also addresses the growth in atmospheric methane, which indeed has slowed considerably in recent years.
Sorry, here is the link: http://skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
Isn’t that odd! Global warming has all but stopped also in recent years. Yet my crops continue to break records of production per acre due to the continually increasing CO2. So why do you feel there is some emergency of runaway warming (other than the political correctness of blind faith in the consensus)?
warrenlb:
WUWT is a science site. It is good to see you trying to support your arguments with links, but if you are to obtain any credibility on WUWT then you need to link to scientific information and NOT to climate porn sites.
I hope this information helps you.
Richard
@Richardscournty
I certainly don’t need help from a d**nier of Science.
warrenlb:
You write
Good. Then – as I suggested – you will not again link to that climate porn site.
It gives me great pleasure that I was able to help you with that.
Richard
Really guys don’t feed the troll. He’ll eventually get bored with poking all of us sadly misguided ones and return to his favoured site.
This is an opinion blog, It samples some of the science, but does not represent the work of scientists as a whole. It gives a stage to a small fraction of the relevant science.
Those of you with pet cods will be excited to have learned from this work that, just like your cat, they’ll chase around your living room running after a laser beam.
Scientific research — always with a new surprise! 🙂
So curiosity is not limited to homo Sapiens?
Are those sharks with laser beams?
I don’t see any methane in the picture. Where is the ‘amazing’ picture of methane seeping?