[Steve_American]

Dr Euan Nisbet - Methane Climate Termination Event - Wetlands are turning on with Nick Breeze ClimateGenn 17.5 min.

Termination Event is the technical term used by paleoclimate scientists to describe the increase in Methane in the air as many previous heating events were starting in deep time.
. . . He just means that more Methane is being released from tropical wetlands and Arctic permafrost, etc. It seems to be accelerating. The tropical wetlands part is very bad and was not a tipping point that I had heard of before now

Yes, Methane is changed into H2O and CO2 in 20 to 89 years (depending on the source), but in the 1st year it is 80 times worse than CO2, by weight or volume. So, a tiny bit that keeps increasing because hotter temps releases more is very bad for the near future.
.
Remove the [==] to view it.
https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=kDwxFS0KeQY&list=TLPQMjExMDIwMjPLzGA_I1pjmw&index=35
.

[Truth To Power]

Dr Euan Nisbet - Methane Climate Termination Event - Wetlands are turning on with Nick Breeze ClimateGenn 17.5 min.

Termination Event is the technical term used by paleoclimate scientists to describe the increase in Methane in the air as many previous heating events were starting in deep time.
. . . He just means that more Methane is being released from tropical wetlands and Arctic permafrost, etc. It seems to be accelerating. The tropical wetlands part is very bad and was not a tipping point that I had heard of before now

Yes, Methane is changed into H2O and CO2 in 20 to 89 years (depending on the source), but in the 1st year it is 80 times worse than CO2, by weight or volume. So, a tiny bit that keeps increasing because hotter temps releases more is very bad for the near future.
.
Remove the [==] to view it.
https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=kDwxFS0KeQY&list=TLPQMjExMDIwMjPLzGA_I1pjmw&index=35
.

No, that is just more absurd anti-CO2 nonscience with no basis in empirical fact. The earth has been warmer -- often much warmer -- many times in the past, and there was never any "methane termination event."

[Steve_American]

No, that is just more absurd anti-CO2 nonscience with no basis in empirical fact. The earth has been warmer -- often much warmer -- many times in the past, and there was never any "methane termination event."

Says the troll-like poster who rarely gives any evidence and never gives up when he is proven wrong.

Why should anyone believe you over an actual expert?

It was easy to google "methane termination event" to find this. The top of the 1st page is this.

Climate terminations
With each flip from a glacial to an interglacial climate there have been sudden, sharp rises in atmospheric methane, likely from expanding tropical wetlands. These great climate flips that ended each ice age are known as terminations.

You are proven wrong that easy.

So, because the last Ice Age has already ended with a methane termination event, adding another on top of the fairly warm temps of the last 12000 years is going to move the world to a new higher temp range that the world has not seen for the last maybe million years. Certainly not for the last 12000 years. The problem is that we have bred crops to thrive at the old temps that we have increased by 1.2 deg C already. So, they don't do as well at temps 2 or 3 deg. hotter. Also, all our infrastructure is designed to withstand the old temps. Rebuilding it to work at the new higher temps will be very, very expensive. Also, sea level rise is going to be very expensive to hold back, or to move away from.
.

[BeesKnee5]

As you say, plenty of evidence for large increase in methane levels in the past as the milankovitch cycles trend towards an increase in solar energy being recieved by the Northern hemisphere and that they had significant impact on the earth's climate.

It's not exactly contentious.

[Truth To Power]

Says the troll-like poster who rarely gives any evidence

False. I always give evidence, including from external sources when it is appropriate.

and never gives up when he is proven wrong.

On the very few occasions that has happened, I have acknowledged it.

Why should anyone believe you over an actual expert?

Because fact and logic are on my side.

It was easy to google "methane termination event" to find this. The top of the 1st page is this.

And as usual, it does not say what you claim it says:

With each flip from a glacial to an interglacial climate there have been sudden, sharp rises in atmospheric methane, likely from expanding tropical wetlands.

See? From glacial to interglacial. NOT from interglacial to slightly warmer interglacial. And the temporary and climate-irrelevant increase in methane is more likely due to the release of rotting organic matter from under the melting glaciers.

Clear?

These great climate flips that ended each ice age are known as terminations.

I.e., glacial terminations, not methane terminations.

You are proven wrong that easy.

Refuted above.

So, because the last Ice Age has already ended with a methane termination event,

No, your source was talking about glacial termination, not methane termination. You could call it a glacial termination methane event, but that would be honest and not scary enough.

adding another on top of the fairly warm temps of the last 12000 years

We know that is impossible because it was warmer during the Holocene Optimum, and no methane event occurred because there were no vast glaciers melting and uncovering dead and rotting organic material.

is going to move the world to a new higher temp range that the world has not seen for the last maybe million years.

No, that is certainly false because methane concentration will still be too low to have any significant effect on climate because its absorption spectrum is already saturated. And FYI, the Pleistocene glaciation epoch began ~2.5MYA, and it was much warmer than today before that, in the Pliocene. Our remote ancestors did just fine.

Certainly not for the last 12000 years.

Wrong again. It was warmer during the Holocene Optimum following the Younger Dryas, and no significant methane increase occurred.

The problem is that we have bred crops to thrive at the old temps that we have increased by 1.2 deg C already.

GARBAGE. Crops love warm weather -- which is why the tropics are far more agriculturally productive than temperate zones -- and high CO2, which is one reason agricultural yields continue to increase. There is also no credible empirical evidence whatever that the rebound from the Little Ice Age was caused by human activity rather than the greatly increased solar activity from the lowest sustained level in several thousand years to the highest.

So, they don't do as well at temps 2 or 3 deg. hotter.

Wrong again. You are obviously someone who has never actually tried to grow a crop.

Also, all our infrastructure is designed to withstand the old temps. Rebuilding it to work at the new higher temps will be very, very expensive.

That is just more absurd scaremongering. Please give an example of infrastructure that would have to be rebuilt to accommodate a temperature increase that is a tiny fraction of the increase from dawn to afternoon, let alone from winter to summer.

Also, sea level rise is going to be very expensive to hold back, or to move away from.

If there were any credible empirical evidence that sea level -- which has been rising at roughly the same rate for thousands of years -- could be increased by CO2, that is.

[Truth To Power]

As you say, plenty of evidence for large increase in methane levels in the past as the milankovitch cycles trend towards an increase in solar energy being recieved by the Northern hemisphere and that they had significant impact on the earth's climate.

It's not exactly contentious.

It's just flat wrong. There is no credible empirical evidence that the increase in methane had any significant effect compared to the ice albedo feedback.

[Steve_American]

False. I always give evidence, including from external sources when it is appropriate.

On the very few occasions that has happened, I have acknowledged it.

Because fact and logic are on my side.

And as usual, it does not say what you claim it says:

See? From glacial to interglacial. NOT from interglacial to slightly warmer interglacial. And the temporary and climate-irrelevant increase in methane is more likely due to the release of rotting organic matter from under the melting glaciers.

Clear?

I.e., glacial terminations, not methane terminations.

Refuted above.

No, your source was talking about glacial termination, not methane termination. You could call it a glacial termination methane event, but that would be honest and not scary enough.

We know that is impossible because it was warmer during the Holocene Optimum, and no methane event occurred because there were no vast glaciers melting and uncovering dead and rotting organic material.

No, that is certainly false because methane concentration will still be too low to have any significant effect on climate because its absorption spectrum is already saturated. And FYI, the Pleistocene glaciation epoch began ~2.5MYA, and it was much warmer than today before that, in the Pliocene. Our remote ancestors did just fine.

Wrong again. It was warmer during the Holocene Optimum following the Younger Dryas, and no significant methane increase occurred.

GARBAGE. Crops love warm weather -- which is why the tropics are far more agriculturally productive than temperate zones -- and high CO2, which is one reason agricultural yields continue to increase. There is also no credible empirical evidence whatever that the rebound from the Little Ice Age was caused by human activity rather than the greatly increased solar activity from the lowest sustained level in several thousand years to the highest.

Wrong again. You are obviously someone who has never actually tried to grow a crop.

That is just more absurd scaremongering. Please give an example of infrastructure that would have to be rebuilt to accommodate a temperature increase that is a tiny fraction of the increase from dawn to afternoon, let alone from winter to summer.

If there were any credible empirical evidence that sea level -- which has been rising at roughly the same rate for thousands of years -- could be increased by CO2, that is.

I already proved him wrong. So, lurkers, I'm not going to argue with this troll.

I'll just point out that I didn't create the phrase "methane termination event" that was done by the experts.

[Truth To Power]

I already proved him wrong.

Refuted above.

So, lurkers, I'm not going to argue with this troll.

Very wise.

I'll just point out that I didn't create the phrase "methane termination event" that was done by the experts.

But what you referenced was not a methane termination event, it was a glacial termination event.

[Steve_American]

Refuted above.

Very wise.

But what you referenced was not a methane termination event, it was a glacial termination event.

Lurkers, TtP is not getting the situation. I said that experts were the ones who decided on the terminology. He needs to argue with them.
I knew that the term was extreme and so confusing. That is why I went out of my way in the OP to say that it is a technical term. I suspected some would think it refers to the termination of civilization and not to the termination of a glacial cold period and the start of an interglacial warm period.

Arguing with him is pointless because I think all of you who have open minds already know that he is almost always wrong and never sees that he's wrong. It's almost as if he is a paid troll.

[Potemkin]

Lurkers, TtP is not getting the situation. I said that experts were the ones who decided on the terminology. He needs to argue with them.
I knew that the term was extreme and so confusing. That is why I went out of my way in the OP to say that it is a technical term. I suspected some would think it refers to the termination of civilization and not to the termination of a glacial cold period and the start of an interglacial warm period.

Arguing with him is pointless because I think all of you who have open minds already know that he is almost always wrong and never sees that he's wrong. It's almost as if he is a paid troll.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a ‘technical term’ or not - in this context, it is misleading. Technical terminology is freely invented by the experts in order to avoid misleading people. In this context, the word ‘glacial’ should have been added in front of it to avoid misunderstandings, as @Truth To Power pointed out.

Oh, and @Truth To Power is presenting cogent arguments in this thread. I don’t always agree with him, but he’s not a troll. You need to engage with him instead of just dismissing him.

[Pants-of-dog]

Current temperatures are warmer than during the Holocene optimum.

For those of us who dislike Youtube videos:

https://theconversation.com/rising-meth ... ion-211211

[Steve_American]

1] It doesn’t matter if it’s a ‘technical term’ or not - in this context, it is misleading. Technical terminology is freely invented by the experts in order to avoid misleading people. In this context, the word ‘glacial’ should have been added in front of it to avoid misunderstandings, as @Truth To Power pointed out.

2] Oh, and @Truth To Power is presenting cogent arguments in this thread. I don’t always agree with him, but he’s not a troll. You need to engage with him instead of just dismissing him.

1] I agreed that it is confusing. What more do you think I need to do? I'm not going to try to make the experts add the word glacial as you propose.

2] He seems to think that his say so is evidence. With all due respect, the say so of anyone on line, including me, is not evidence.

I have engaged with him many times and he just chooses to believe what he wants to believe.

He didn't have much to say that was clear and/or provided some evidence.
E.g., he said that my link didn't say what i said it said. But, I have no idea what he thinks I said or what he thinks the link said that is different from what he thinks I said. Therefore, I can't really respond to his point here.
E.g., he said, "...and no methane event occurred because there were no vast glaciers melting and uncovering dead and rotting organic material." 1st, if the methane came from where he said, that doesn't mean there was no methane event. 2nd, he provided no evidence for where he got the idea that it came from the ground where glaciers had just melted and exposed. 3rd, ISTM, that after 90,000 years under slowly moving ice 2 miles thick, that the ground might often be bed rock and not dirt.
E.g., He wrote, "Wrong again. It was warmer during the Holocene Optimum following the Younger Dryas, and no significant methane increase occurred." He just asserted this. He must know that many here have provided evidence that it was not warmer in the Holocene Optimum and even if he was somehow correct, that still is not evidence that there is no methane event now. Also, the Younger Dryas was a cold snap of about 1000 years that happened in very limited areas (N. America and W. Europe) after the end of the last glacial. So, the methane event may have happened before the Younger Dryas and not after.

Also, he does not think things through enough. E.g., He wrote, "Please give an example of infrastructure that would have to be rebuilt to accommodate a temperature increase that is a tiny fraction of the increase from dawn to afternoon, let alone from winter to summer." He does not grok that it is not the new average temps that will require rebuilding infrastructure. It is the new extremes in temp, both hotter and colder, that require rebuilding it. An example of colder is Texas in the winter a few years ago that got frozen and lost power for days. An example of hotter temps might be electric power high voltage lines that may sag and break from the heat softening the copper in the wires or causing forest fires somehow. Another example is roads washed away by floods, so they may need to be moved away from the rivers to higher ground with new higher and longer bridges.

Then he asks for credible empirical evidence about the future, when his definition of credible empirical evidence excludes all predictions about the future because' it can't be empirical. He does this by asking, "If there were any credible empirical evidence that sea level -- which has been rising at roughly the same rate for thousands of years -- could be increased by CO2, that is."
Also, my experts reject his claim that, "which [i.e. sea level] has been rising at roughly the same rate for thousands of years " is totally false. It had been quite stable for thousands of years and it is speeding up in the last few years. A fact that undermines his claim for long-term sea-level rise, is that many ancient ports are now miles inland, like Carthage. This is a result of massive soil erosion moving soil to the shallow water near the ports. There are many such ports. Others, like Alexandria, are still close to the sea level they had in ancient times.

He just makes things up, IMHP.

Edit to add a dew min.later.
He also does not grok that both weather and climate are complex systems with many feedbacks. This makes them Chaotic, in the sense of conforming to the generalities of the new Chaos Math. In Chaos Math a tiny change can be the difference between a moon being ejected from orbiting its planet and it staying in orbit for another 100K years. It is the butterfly effect.

So, he seems to implicitly assume that all small changes in anything in the climate will always result in a small change in the climate. Chaos Math has proved that this is not always true. We are seeing an example of this already. The jet stream has become much more wavy. Climate scientists have shown that this is or can be the result of temperature changes from GHG in the air. He says that it is not proven with empirical evidence. But, it is happening and this is an example of how Choas Mah can make a complex system behave.
.

[Potemkin]

1] I agreed that it is confusing. What more do you think I need to do? I'm not going to try to make the experts add the word glacial as you propose.

Technical terminology is used to clarify meaning. If it is used inflexibly, then it just becomes jargon, which obfuscates meaning.

2] He seems to think that his say so is evidence. With all due respect, the say so of anyone on line, including me, is not evidence.

I have engaged with him many times and he just chooses to believe what he wants to believe.

His debating style can be abrupt and abrasive, but he generally puts forward cogent arguments. Whether these arguments are correct or not is another matter, of course.

Oh, and please stop using the word ‘grok’. This is not the 1960s. Lol.

[Steve_American]

@Potemkin, note that I just edited my last post.

As for you objection to the experts choice of phrase, you didn't suggest that I do anything. So, do you agree that it isn't up to me to correct the expert's choice of phrases?

I like the word, grok. Expand your vocabulary. Stranger in a Strange Land was a formative book in my life.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin, note that I just edited my last post.

I like the word, grok. Expand your vocabulary. Stranger in a Strange Land was a formative book in my life.

It was for me too, @Steve_American. But I had recovered from that by the time I was 15.

[Truth To Power]

Lurkers, TtP is not getting the situation.

No, you aren't.

I said that experts were the ones who decided on the terminology.

And then you showed they meant something else entirely.

He needs to argue with them.

No, I just have to identify the fact that the term you used did not describe the event you claimed it described, and that the reference you gave for your usage did not say what you claimed it said.

I knew that the term was extreme and so confusing.

It wasn't confusing in the least. It was just deliberately misleading.

That is why I went out of my way in the OP to say that it is a technical term.

Which does not mean what you claimed it meant.

I suspected some would think it refers to the termination of civilization

Or at least of methane. But nooooo....

and not to the termination of a glacial cold period and the start of an interglacial warm period.

Which has nothing to do with methane.

Arguing with him is pointless because I think all of you who have open minds already know that he is almost always wrong and never sees that he's wrong.

That is objectively false. I explain the facts and logic that prove I am right.

It's almost as if he is a paid troll.

No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again.

[Truth To Power]

Current temperatures are warmer than during the Holocene optimum.

Yes, but only in the tiny fraction of the earth's surface that consists of urban heat islands and other local sites where non-CO2 human activities have raised temperatures -- and where, not coincidentally, almost all of the thermometers liars use to concoct their bogus global surface temperature records are located.

https://theconversation.com/rising-methane-could-be-a-sign-that-earths-climate-is-part-way-through-a-termination-level-transition-211211

Which is just more absurd, hysterical, anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, but only in the tiny fraction of the earth's surface that consists of urban heat islands and other local sites where non-CO2 human activities have raised temperatures -- and where, not coincidentally, almost all of the thermometers liars use to concoct their bogus global surface temperature records are located.

No

This claim of yours is factually incorrect.

Which is just more absurd, hysterical, anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

Quote the part that is incorrect.

[Truth To Power]

No

Yes.

This claim of yours is factually incorrect.

No. It is indisputably correct as a matter of objective physical fact.

Quote the part that is incorrect.

"heat-trapping methane"

Methane does not trap heat in the atmosphere because its concentration is so low and its absorption spectrum is already saturated by water vapor and CO2.

"[increased methane] may signal that a great transition in Earth’s climate has begun."

No, it can have no such implication because it is neither a cause of nor caused by climate change.

"Methane emissions threaten humanity’s ability to limit warming to relatively safe levels."

No, that is just another stupid lie because
1. Methane is not a significant greenhouse gas because there is so little of it in the atmosphere, and its spectrum is already saturated;
2. There is almost nothing humanity can do to limit natural warming and cooling of the climate anyway; and
3. There is no credible empirical evidence that natural warming could be unsafe or net harmful to humanity.

"Methane is both a driver and a messenger of climate change."

It is neither, because increased methane is neither a cause of nor caused by climate change.

"Today’s growth seems to be driven by new emissions from wetlands, especially near the equator but perhaps also from Canada (beavers are methane factories which pull huge amounts of plant matter into ponds they’ve made) and Siberia."

No, the increase in methane in the last two decades has been driven by fracking and changes in agriculture, especially increased meat production in China using imported fodder.

"the far north and south are warming fast,"

False. Actual thermometer readings from scientific stations at pristine sites near the North and South Poles show no such rapid warming.

"extreme weather is becoming routine."

No, it has always been routine.

"...climate change, which is primarily driven by CO₂ emissions,"

That is just baldly false. It is a clear and obvious lie. The author of that lie is a LIAR, like all other lying anti-fossil-fuel liars.

[Steve_American]

@Potemkin

Yes.

No. It is indisputably correct as a matter of objective physical fact.

"heat-trapping methane"

Methane does not trap heat in the atmosphere because its concentration is so low and its absorption spectrum is already saturated by water vapor and CO2.

"[increased methane] may signal that a great transition in Earth’s climate has begun."

No, it can have no such implication because it is neither a cause of nor caused by climate change.

"Methane emissions threaten humanity’s ability to limit warming to relatively safe levels."

No, that is just another stupid lie because
1. Methane is not a significant greenhouse gas because there is so little of it in the atmosphere, and its spectrum is already saturated;
2. There is almost nothing humanity can do to limit natural warming and cooling of the climate anyway; and
3. There is no credible empirical evidence that natural warming could be unsafe or net harmful to humanity.

"Methane is both a driver and a messenger of climate change."

It is neither, because increased methane is neither a cause of nor caused by climate change.

"Today’s growth seems to be driven by new emissions from wetlands, especially near the equator but perhaps also from Canada (beavers are methane factories which pull huge amounts of plant matter into ponds they’ve made) and Siberia."

No, the increase in methane in the last two decades has been driven by fracking and changes in agriculture, especially increased meat production in China using imported fodder.

"the far north and south are warming fast,"

False. Actual thermometer readings from scientific stations at pristine sites near the North and South Poles show no such rapid warming.

"extreme weather is becoming routine."

No, it has always been routine.

"...climate change, which is primarily driven by CO₂ emissions,"

That is just baldly false. It is a clear and obvious lie. The author of that lie is a LIAR, like all other lying anti-fossil-fuel liars.

Potemkin and Lurkers, this reply by TtP illustrates my claim (that he seems like a troll) very well.

In this reply, he just makes assertions and doesn't provide any evidence that supports his assertions.

OTOH, to be honest, I just made a reply in a different thread in which I did the same.
. . . People here keep posting about how the US Gov. debt is a problem and will someday cause high inflation. I keep responding that they are wrong. Mostly they have stopped responding to show I'm wrong. It feels like they can't refute my points, but it may be that they give up because they think I'm just sure I'm correct. I like to think that I'm open to being convinced. That their points are not convincing for good reasons. I feel like a geologist who in 1960 had been convinced that the continents have drifted apart, and so kept arguing with almost all other geologists who asserted that it is impossible. I hope that like that analogy, where in about 1968 most geologists finally got enough evidence to be convinced that the continents do drift apart at about 1/2"/year, that in a few more years most lay people on this site (if not most economists) will accept that MMT is correct.

AFAIK, the geologists had theories that were based on facts that were true, while economists base their conclusions on theories that they assert are based on microeconomic simplified assumptions that are obviously false. And, in logic, you can't use false premises (that you assumed are true) in a valid proof. This is because with just one carefully chosen false (but assumed to be true) premise you can prove anything. It makes it worse that MS economists use several obviously false simplified assumptions in their proofs.
. . . Also, all the MainStream economic theories were formulated when the gold standard was still in place, in that the US would exchange 1 troy oz. of gold for 35 dollars, and almost all other currencies were pegged to the dollar. However, in 1971 Nixon ended the dollar's peg to gold. After this massive change, economic theories should have been modified to reflect this fundamental change in the situation. They were not changed. My MMT prof. sources assert that the MS econ. Profs. kept using the same notes for their lectures for years if not decades. Text books were also not changed to reflect the fact that nations that didn't peg their currency to anything didn't need to get their own currency with taxes or by borrowing to be able to spend it. Yes, there is some risk of inflation, but economic history clearly shows periods that are over a decade or 3 long in which nations did deficit spend a lot and yet inflation was under the 2% target.

So, I think that I have a good argument for my position, and I think the TtP does not. He just makes assertions after we have shown him many times that they are not true.
. . . Yes, it seems like he thinks like I do that he is right and all of us are wrong. However, he is betting the lives of billions of people that he is right, while I'm betting that I can improve the lives of millions of people if I'm right. That is if he is wrong and leaders follow his policies, then billions will die. While, if I'm wrong, then millions of people will have to live with inflation that can be either controlled after the fact, or who can be helped to pay the higher prices. [Or, with rationing and price controls the inflation will not happen, while we fight against the climate crisis. And if we save civilization, then the end state will be worth some inflation. This is because billions not dying is so good that any amount of inflation is better than them dying.]
. . . OR, if I'm right and like I fervently hope, the deficit spending is aimed at solving the climate crisis, then millions will get new jobs working to win the fight to save civilization, so that billions will not die.
. . . I admit that I'm not hoping to keep economic growth going with MMT. In fact IMHO, we must slash the living standard in the advanced nations to have any chance at all, to save civilization from collapse that will kill billions. So, I'm not painting a rosy picture. This (realistically) means that it is unlikely that the masses in the advanced nations will see the need for rationing soon enough to do any good. If the optimistic experts, like Dr. Mann, are correct, then they should agree with me that using rationing to slash fossil fuel use in a planned way, will massively increases the probability that we can keep temps low enough to save civilization.