More Global warming Myths

Northern Siberia's thaw lakes are belching out up to five times as much methane as previously thought. And as global warming causes the permafrost to melt, lakes worldwide could emit even more methane, reinforcing climate change.

www.newscientist.com...

The data is again getting lost in "assumption". Facts indicate the entire theory about greenhouse gases is flawed. This reporter just states that so called 'experts" are horribly ignorant of the actual atmosphere system and how the gasses are released and absorbed.

This is more proof of the idiocy of man-made global warming. Yet again observed data differs from theory.



[edit on 6-9-2006 by thermopolis]

hi thermopolis, can you please show me the "Facts" that "indicate the entire theory about greenhouse gases is flawed"

I have never heard of any facts that diprove greenhouse gas theory so i would be most interested.

As far as i was aware... Man made global warming caused by greenhouse gases was a widely except theory among most of the scientific comunity.

thanks

Originally posted by thermopolis
[The data is again getting lost in "assumption". Facts indicate the entire theory about greenhouse gases is flawed. This reporter just states that so called 'experts" are horribly ignorant of the actual atmosphere system and how the gasses are released and absorbed.
This is more proof of the idiocy of man-made global warming. Yet again observed data differs from theory.
[edit on 6-9-2006 by thermopolis]

We know a great deal about methane warming - there are holes off the coast of Norway where vast amounts of methane were released thousands of years ago, which might have led to the rapid warming of the earth. This stuff is only stable under certain conditions, like cold water at a certain pressure above it. Destabilise these conditions and it rushes to the surface.
The amount of warming that it takling place, which is melting the permafrost and releasing the methane is highly worrying. We could see the start of as cascade reaction - warming leads to the release of methane, which causes more warming, which releases more methane, etc.
Please clarify your position with regard to these 'facts' that you mention. What are they?

The article referenced clearly indicates that "experts" were supprised that the lakes emitted 5 times what was previously "estimated". This statement alone makes suspect the entire greenhouse gas calculation and associated theory. If this "model" were so correct as to predict the cause of global warming, then how can an emission 5 times larger than previously 'estimated" be even possible?

The point is..........junk science and conjecture..........its all "cowcrap".

Global warming is real..........but has little to do with "evil man"............



[edit on 7-9-2006 by thermopolis]

Originally posted by thermopolis
The article referenced clearly indicates that "experts" were supprised that the lakes emitted 5 times what was previously "estimated". This statement alone makes suspect the entire greenhouse gas calculation and associated theory. If this "model" were so correct as to predict the cause of global warming, then how can an emission 5 times larger than previously 'estimated" be even possible?

The amount of methane being released by these lakes, whilst much higher than previous thought is - at the moment - pretty insignificant with regards to any causation of current warming.

We're talking 3.8 million tonnes of methane per year - compared with a global total of about 600 ,illion tones. Much of which is produced by human activities.

So, this discovery has no effect on current global warming theories. What it does, is force us to reassess possible future trends as more and more of the permafrosts starts to melt. We really don't know how much methane is frozen there, nor how quickly it will be released. This study suggests it may be released more quickly then previously thought, thus accelerating warmer more.

It also, of course, has no bearing on CO2 emission which are the primary greenhouse gas which human activity has been increasing.

How many times??? again and again and again,

There is no reliable Global Warming Model which will accurately predict the climate changes we are undergoing. It is much like a very long range weather forecast, close but not perfect. The statement that an increase in the amount of methane being released form the permafrost’s proves the models are incorrect is right. However it is right in the sense metropolis that they are too low in their estimates in the changes that will take place.

There truly is Metropolis no argument or serious scientific study going on into the Global warming Myth as you call it. It is hardly a Myth as it is being measured and observed all the time. No there may be conjecture about whether it is a natural cycle and not triggered by mankind’s actions. This may be partly right...that a natural cycle is warming up the earth....

However there is one fact that is soo simple in science terms that most high school educated children can get a grasp of it. It is this and I question ANYONE AT ALL to make a valid objection to my following statement (something I have been saying here and elsewhere for years)

Burning fossil fuels and other man made industrial processes release pollutants as part of the reaction taking place. These gases in some cases are what is known as Greenhouse gases (like co2 and methane). The release of these gases, or a increase in their abundance into the earths atmosphere in the past, has been shown BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT to increase the temperature of the environment. (aka global warming)

It happens, it has happened many times in earths history before mankind was even at the level of a monkey, and more shrew like. IT IS A UNDENOUNCABLE Process. It has been proven again and again and again. Now the only question is how much of mankind’s activity added to these gases and therefore the temperature rises we are seeing. What percentage of what we see happening on the earth due t global warming is due to mans influence. This is the only area of disagreement within this subject. Global warming has and will happen again, its no theory its a fact.

What you fail to understand though Metropolis is the following, that feedback is the one thing (esp. in the US) that scientists cant measure, predict or account for properly, and this news story only highlights the very present and real danger that we could have a spiral of change growing at an inversely proportional rate above what is expected due to these sort of events.

Within this one event alone, i.e. permafrost melting and releasing more carbon than expected there is feedback leading to more feedback. The amount of methane being released is more than expected. This increases the capability of the atmosphere to keep heat trapped within the atmosphere. This causes more permafrost to melt, i.e. the first feedback process in this single environment, raising temperatures more and therefore more permafrost melting, however as in the Glaciers and Artic the permafrost actually helps cool the earth as the radiation from the sun is reflected back out to space (that energy not trapped by atmospheric gases) when it hits the generally white or lightest colour of the permafrost. However as the permafrost melts what lies underneath it is black and dark like peat. Well obviously this attracts and retains the radiation from the sun hitting it, causing more to melt i.e. the second feedback of this one system/environment.

This may be alarming enough, however a third feedback then comes in from this. The dark bog, peat like material underneath is undecomposed organic matter made almost entirely of carbon based plant material. When this material warms up and oxidises (has interaction with the atmosphere) guess what, it starts to break down and releases both massive amounts of carbon and methane again!!

So in this one example as in all things to do with the living ecosystem of earth, every thing is interrelated and has further effects than one might first expect. This is an example of one process of global warming creating more processes. This is without looking at what the net effect of all the greenhouse gases from this one system might have else where in the world, setting of another system, which sets of another.

What people must start understanding is that one day, even a small amount of extra introduction into this system, say 1 ton of methane or CO2 will be the tipping point so that runaway feedback systems feed each other quickly and UNSTOPABLY. Some even think that point has passed and I tend to agree with them, but keep an open and optimistic view on this, though I believe 10 years will be too late if we do make radical changes to our fossil fuel use. Thermopolis trust me I do come from position of Authority on this I am no pretend computer scientist at home, its part of my job, ive got a Degree in this area. When you come from a position of authority too on this subject please do then make such statements.

It is real. It is Happening. Anyone who denies it is either very close-minded, scared of the reality and urgency of the situation, brainwashed, or works for the Military Industrial complex. Maybe just stupid, or disinfo.

To surmise, yes you are correct the models are wrong, but not in the sense of how you posit it. They just need revising to a higher amount of atmospheric change in energy present within the system. This truly has not been in discussion outside the USA for the last 10 years among serious scientists, that is global warming caused by or at least influenced by mankind’s activities. And as the recent confirmation from some of the leading research centres in the USA now publicly state its existence, and also evidence of media manipulation by the Bush administration to cover it up IS ON RECORD now…well to be honest im surprised your whipping a dead horse.

Metropolis im not meaning to cause any offence or to knock your views, but you are soooo factually wrong and ignorant on the matter I had to respond like this. I will not support the spread of lies on this issue.

Kind Regards
Elf
Some fingerprints of it
Some US goverments Proof
Watch this!
IPCC Real Scientists

[edit on 7-9-2006 by MischeviousElf]

Domino effect, tip one and they all start to fall.




The house is on fire and you have to wonder why there's people still inside argueing about who started it. Are they waiting for the ghost of Darwin to tap their shoulders?


[edit on 7-9-2006 by Regenmacher]

Global Warming is BS, sorry. I'm not saying it doesn't exist for sure, but the evidence is HIGHLY inconclusive. I've studied plenty of misleading graphs by alarmists meant to scare you, the truth is the Earth has been naturally warming.

Screaming about how Global Warming is true like an idiot is stupid unless some actual evidence exists.

John Mike,
I am interested in these graphs you have been "studying". As we all know a graph is just a way of displaying data in a form easily interpreted by humans, its easier on the eye than data sets. I am wondering which data you have been looking at in graph form that proves global warming is BS?

Yes there are alarmists out there. However there is actual evidence and proof too. You obviously though did not read my post? I stated a supporting view of the fact that global warming is probably caused in part by natural warming and cooling cycles of the atmosphere. However in addition to this there is no longer any doubt that man is affecting it. Lets have a look at some real BS shall we, namely from the US government on this issue.

The top Climate Scientist in the Worlds View

Have a look at that if you want any alarmising. What data sets from the Independent IPCC studies do you have difficulties understanding when presented in graph form?

What is therefore your response to my question FOR ANYONE of any calibre or how many PhD’s to not agree with my statement in my above post. I laid the challenge and the response is one paragraph. Please if you are going to make such claims back them up!

Us who know something about the facts and science behind this have facts and data that is proven time and time again.

lets look at some of this for your ease of understanding and acceptance.

And in November, a multi-year study by 300 scientists concluded that the Arctic was warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and that its ice-cap had shrunk by up to 20 per cent in the past three decades.

The ice is also 40 per cent thinner than it was in the 1970s and is expected to disappear altogether by 2070. And while Dr Pachauri was speaking parts of the Arctic were having a January "heatwave", with temperatures eight to nine degrees centigrade higher than normal. He also cited alarming measurements, first reported in The Independent on Sunday, showing that levels of carbon dioxide (the main cause of global warming) have leapt abruptly over the past two years, suggesting that climate change may be accelerating out of control. He added that, because of inertia built into the Earth's natural systems, the world was now only experiencing the result of pollution emitted in the 1960s, and much greater effects would occur as the increased pollution of later decades worked its way through. He concluded: "We are risking the ability of the human race to survive."

Lets not listen to these alarmist people who are the most experienced and scientifically independent in the world, no because the graphs don’t look right. So which data sets John Mike? please provide a link so we can discuss them further, I am sure we can both add something to each others knowledge on this subject.

Lets also look at this proof, you can access the data sets and results from the below website. Ive looked at it closely and in my opinion and judgement all the data seems to be correct, do you have a problem with this data? and why?

The paper's abstract notes: "A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenic ally forced climate models. (The authors) conclude it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change."

The Best Oceanographic Institute in The World Proof of Mans Impact on Global Warming

John Mike or anyone else, I have a copy of the paper, or can arrange for you to get it, provide some help with sourcing if you would like. I would like to talk with you and "study" together your interpretation of the results.

Maybe for some people data sets and real science is difficult so lets look at the following picture, now as many posit this is natural process well please provide me with data that shows such rapidly rising warming from earths past...I haven’t seen it to date and work in this field, interesting that:

Red, orange, and brown colouring indicate areas where temperatures measured in 2000 are warmer than the average temperature from 1951 to 1980. The scale represents degrees in Celsius. Negative numbers represent cooling, and positive numbers depict warming.

Source

Well what’s alarmist about historical rises? what’s wrong with this data? why is its natural and a cyclic process has this not been observed happening in all of earths history? (that is after the development of an oxygen/nitrogen based atmosphere as apposed to the previous ones on earth)... please explain to me.

Maybe I will let NASA state it better:

"Historically, those changes have happened very slowly; but what we are doing now is we are changing that imbalance at a rate which appears to be unprecedented over at least a thousand years and possibly longer."

This a picture of what this story is all about, TAKEN IN 1960 in the highest and most sensitive outside of the artic and Antarctic environment on earth. The Tibetan Plateau. The permafrost has gone for the first time in over 1000 years of observations and a train track gone. This was in 1960.

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

Kind Regards

Elf


[edit on 9-9-2006 by MischeviousElf]

My concern is not about global warming, but how the bio-system will compensate.
There have been recorded climatictic changes (even biblical) and however you want to discuss it, I doubt everyday activity will lead to putting us in a "toaster oven".
If I were to totally speculate, the warming waters will begin to release more O2 (I've heard this somewhere) which is not necessarily a good thing. Oxygen is toxic at high levels as it tends to begin to freely bond with tissue.

Bio

That’s the whole point. You are right in stating that Global Warming biggest threat is how the Bio sphere will cope. Lots of humans for some strange reason seem to forget that they are part of and therefore under the influence of this world.

Already Spring has now been officially recognised as arriving 2 weeks earlier as a whole in Europe. I have witnessed with my own eyes some terrestrial UK plants and species (esp. insects) trying to compensate for this, I saw some acorns falling at the middle of August due to this!! about a month earlier than usual.

As the whole balance of life on earth is down to Food Webs and pyramids many many species of Plant and animal and insects will have a hard time adjusting to this, and in very specialised species who rely on one stream of Food source this can over a generational breeding period cause numbers to plummet to endangered levels very quickly. This then effects the next predator up the food chain and so on.

A Europe-wide study has provided "conclusive proof" that the seasons are changing, with spring arriving earlier each year, researchers say.

worrying enough, but just to back up what I was saying above.

If you have species that are dependent on each other changing at different rates, that could just break down the food web

Stated by The reports main author Dr Tim Sparks

One of the paper's lead authors, Tim Sparks from the UK's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), said the findings did not go as far as pointing the finger of blame at human-induced climate change. "We can't tell that from our study but experts have already shown that there is a discernable human influence on the current climate warming."

I have the report in front of me but don’t know the WEB address for it online however if anyone wants more info dig around on this site, or request a copy of the report.

Centre For Ecology and Hydrology

In addition as more proof of the changing planet, and to help you see the actual affects that as you state you wonder how the Bio Sphere will react, heres some more info of what it is doing:

Birds that migrate long distances have adapted to the world's changing climate in unexpected ways, a study shows.
As the planet warms, and spring arrives earlier in Europe, birds are being forced to change their migration patterns.
It had been thought that birds travelling long distances from Africa to Europe would be unable to adapt.
But a study in Science suggests they have evolved in response to climate change and are returning earlier

Source BBC

So it seems some species are adapting a bit already which is good. However some species are soo sensitive and specialised to certain factors that this will be impossible. An example may be the Turtles. They only lay their eggs on one specific Full moon of the year. Now the moon will still be full at that time like for hundreds of thousands of years, but the environment where the eggs are laid will be different, i.e. different temperatures in the sand, also in the sea when the baby turtles try and take their first swim, different temp and also species of predator.

What you mention about the ocean is very important. It however may not be as you think. recent research has shown that Algae and Plankton do not produce as much O2 as though, in addition they use less Co2 than thought. The oceans carry and store most of the worlds energy in the top 20 ft. What may be of concern though is as the oceans are typically Carbon Sinks drawing C02 out of the atmosphere the time of full capability to do this due to over saturation of C02 will mean this balance been taken out of the equation soon. this will further and massively probably increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In addition as this point of total Carbon Dioxide saturation in the oceans grows closer and closer, just as like in a can of Cola the oceans become more Acidic. We’ve all seen a dirty coin come up clean after leaving in a carbonated soft drink, now imagine this effect on all the oceans and all that live in their world wide. Most species of plant (aquabased forms) and fish are very sensitive to PH changes, this may just turn out to be the biggest threat from global warming.

Truly if the oceans have population collapses across the whole range of living things within them.... well that’s it in entirety too for all that live on the land and air. All species of life on earth would collapse very quickly indeed.

WAKE UP GUYS.

Kind Regards

Elf

[edit on 11-9-2006 by MischeviousElf]