Dr Euan Nisbet - Methane Climate Termination [a technical word] Event - Wetlands are turning on - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15296010
Steve_American wrote:1] Why should we take his word for this claim?

Maybe because unlike some other people, I'm honest, intelligent, informed, and rational?
2] AFAIK, the radiative heat models are a small part of the climate change models.

No, they are the core of the anti-CO2 scare narrative.
3] Sorry I was not clear. The increased water vapor traps heat about equal to the amount trapped by the increased methane. So, the amount trapped by the increased methane doubles the total increase in the amount trapped.

Double an insignificantly tiny amount is still insignificantly tiny.
#15296016
Steve_American wrote:Everyone, please note that Methane is a powerful GHG.

But adding it to the atmosphere has no significant effect because its absorption spectrum is already vastly oversaturated by H2O, N2O, and the small amount of natural methane in the atmosphere.
So, various reports I've seen say that Methane is from 20 to 100 times worse by molecule than CO2.

So as it is ~100x less common in the atmosphere than CO2, adding more of it will have just as little effect as adding more CO2.
However, if more and more methane is being released into the air by tropical wetlands and also by permafrost, then the amount added in a year less the amount burned in the air is the relevant amount. This can be and is being measured. It is increasing rapidly.

And having no significant effect on temperature.
If we assume that a molecule of Methane is 80 times worse than one of CO2 then the amount of heating form this new unexpected source means that the world is heating much faster than predicted by models.

But it is actually heating much slower.
Note also the report I linked above that said that temp increases also increase the amount of water vapor in the air, and this also traps much more heat.

No, that's indisputably false, as the heat trapping effect is logarithmic and the additional amount of water vapor is tiny.
I predicted 3 years ago that methane is going to be a major tipping point that would be a sign of big problems coming soon.

And that prediction will continue to be proved false by actual physical events.
It seems like I was correct.

No, you have been proved wrong.
I'm very worried that things will get worse sooner than had been predicted, much sooner.

Because you believe absurd scare narratives and have no understanding of the underlying physics.
This is evidence that we must act NOW to have any chance to avoid a +3 deg. C temp increase that will make the Middle East uninhabitable, so 780 million people will be desperate to move somewhere. Also, other areas will be uninhabitable.

Nonscience. Look at a population map of the earth. It is the cold areas that tend to be uninhabitable, not the hot ones.
This temp is likely enough to cause the collapse of civilization.

Absurd scaremongering.
We will not act, though. The Repubs in the US will block action. In fact. IMHO, about 90% of Americans will block what is necessary, yes necessary! Because what is necessary is a rationing program to slash CO2 emissions which will also slash GDP. This will cause what seems like a depression, in GDP terms. However, if the rationing program is done right, everyone will get enough to eat and a place to live, etc. The very poor would even be better off. All need not be equal though. The rich and super-rich can get extra ration "coupons", maybe need to buy them with millions or billions of dollars.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
This program is the only way to act NOW in a decisive enough way to have any chance of keeping civilization from collapsing. Mark my words.

Mark my words: that is silly nonscience that will continue to be proved false.
I'm like Casandra. Nobody will listen, so the disaster will happen. I give it about a decade, 2 at most. And maybe as soon as 5 years. It depends on how fast Methane is released, of it just keeps increasing the rate of release, if the rate increases exponentially, and what the doubling time is.

How will you apologize when your nonscience is proved wrong again, after millions have died because stupid anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers deprived them of access to cheap, safe, clean, reliable fossil fuels?
#15296045
@Truth To Power

Then prove me wrong.

Please post a clear argument, then provide a link to a source, quote the relevant text, and show how the quote supports the claim.

Note that your claim that methane does not impact global temperatures has not been supported by the evidence you posted, nor did you explain how the evidence should have supported your claim.
#15296062
Truth To Power wrote:It's a term you evidently made up to describe a phenomenon that doesn't happen.


Lurkers, it is typical of T_P that he claims I made the term "methane termination event" up myself but you can google it yourself and get 1,630,000 hits. I'd have to have been very busy to have created that many documents, etc.
. . . I told him I googled it and found many hits weeks ago. I guess he forgot.
.
#15296078
@Truth To Power, I'm going to try a different tack to prove that T_P is wrong when he claims that the air is already saturated with GHGs and adding more does nothing.

Geologists have found evidence that borders on proof, that in deep time over 700M years ago, the Earth was in a "snowball" phase. It was almost totally covered by ice or snow down to the equator. This meant that it was very cold because the snow and ice reflected so much of the sun's light and heat back into space. If this is true, then how did such a state end? We know it did end, because we are here now and the Earth in not covered by ice and snow down to the equator.

Gepoligists theorize that if the iceball continues for 10M years then enough CO2 will have been released into the air that it would heat the Earth with a massive greenhouse effect. The amount of CO2 in the air would have been very, very high. It was not washed out by rain because it can't rain when the iceball is in place.
Where the greenhouse effect ended the iceball, it began to rain. This washed to CO2 out of the air, converting it into calcium carbonate, CaCO3, that was washed into the oceans. They got so saturated with CaaCO3 that it precipitated out in enclosed bays and formed layers of limestone 300 feet thick, that still exist. This was before animals evolved, so the limestone has no fossils or worm tracks, etc, in it. You can see in the rock, snowflake like crystals, some are 3 ft across. It is amazing to see.

Now T_P, how can it be that CO2 from volcanoes over millions of years was able to get the greenhouse effect so strong if you are correct that it could melt the ice of the iceball Earth? You claim that at 400p/m of CO2 the air is already saturated with GHGs. Remember, there is very little water vapor because little sublimates or evaporates from the ice because it is so cold.

.
#15296080
Steve_American wrote:Lurkers, it is typical of T_P that he claims I made the term "methane termination event" up myself but you can google it yourself and get 1,630,000 hits. I'd have to have been very busy to have created that many documents, etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Try Googling it in quotation marks. I got 146 hits, many of them from a site appropriately called, "lunatic outpost." There is no evidence that the term has any currency in climate science.
. . . I told him I googled it and found many hits weeks ago. I guess he forgot.

No, I just assumed you knew you were mistaken.

Let me guess: you don't even know the difference between Googling a set of words and Googling the same words in quotation marks.
#15296081
Steve_American wrote:@Truth To Power, I'm going to try a different tack to prove that T_P is wrong when he claims that the air is already saturated with GHGs and adding more does nothing.

I did not say the air was saturated with GHGs (whatever you erroneously think that could mean), just that their absorption spectra are saturated. You just don't know what that means because you do not know any of the relevant physics. I also did not claim that adding GHGs does nothing. Adding CO2, for example, is very helpful to agriculture, and no doubt also has a very small effect on temperature, as does adding other GHGs like methane.
Geologists have found evidence that borders on proof, that in deep time over 700M years ago, the Earth was in a "snowball" phase. It was almost totally covered by ice or snow down to the equator. This meant that it was very cold because the snow and ice reflected so much of the sun's light and heat back into space. If this is true, then how did such a state end? We know it did end, because we are here now and the Earth in not covered by ice and snow down to the equator.

We don't know why it happened, or why it stopped. It may have been due to continental drift or astronomical events we have not yet identified.
Geoligists theorize that if the iceball continues for 10M years then enough CO2 will have been released into the air that it would heat the Earth with a massive greenhouse effect.

That makes no sense.
The amount of CO2 in the air would have been very, very high.

But it wasn't.
It was not washed out by rain because it can't rain when the iceball is in place.

Rain does not wash CO2 out of the air anyway.
Where the greenhouse effect ended the iceball, it began to rain. This washed to CO2 out of the air, converting it into calcium carbonate, CaCO3, that was washed into the oceans. They got so saturated with CaaCO3 that it precipitated out in enclosed bays and formed layers of limestone 300 feet thick, that still exist. This was before animals evolved, so the limestone has no fossils or worm tracks, etc, in it. You can see in the rock, snowflake like crystals, some are 3 ft across. It is amazing to see.

I'd like to see a reference for that narrative, as it seems highly unlikely.
Now T_P, how can it be that CO2 from volcanoes over millions of years was able to get the greenhouse effect so strong if you are correct that it could melt the ice of the iceball Earth?

As I mentioned before, there is a theoretical threshold effect that would occur at a very low level of CO2. I don't believe it has ever actually been that low, but it's possible the effect occurred at a higher level in the distant past when the sun was cooler and the atmosphere and climate conditions were completely different.
You claim that at 400p/m of CO2 the air is already saturated with GHGs.

Its absorption spectrum is saturated.
Remember, there is very little water vapor because little sublimates or evaporates from the ice because it is so cold.

Yes, if the earth were completely frozen, adding a very small amount of CO2 would be enough to thaw some of the ice, releasing some water vapor. Then that water vapor heats the earth much more than the CO2, creating a positive feedback effect -- including, importantly, the ice albedo feedback -- until the earth is completely thawed except near the poles.
#15296083
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please post a clear argument, then provide a link to a source, quote the relevant text, and show how the quote supports the claim.

No. You seem to think you are giving homework assignments to middle school students. You aren't.
Note that your claim that methane does not impact global temperatures has not been supported by the evidence you posted, nor did you explain how the evidence should have supported your claim.

Yes, it has, and yes, I did. You just don't know enough of the relevant physics -- or can't summon the willingness -- to understand it.
#15296100
My replies are highlighted and in brackets. And in [brackets] in the quotes from my 2 sources.

Truth To Power wrote:I did not say the air was saturated with GHGs (whatever you erroneously think that could mean), just that their absorption spectra are saturated. You just don't know what that means because you do not know any of the relevant physics. I also did not claim that adding GHGs does nothing. Adding CO2, for example, is very helpful to agriculture, and no doubt also has a very small effect on temperature, as does adding other GHGs like methane.[OK, fine I was sloppy. Your wording is better. I meant that you claim that the current low amounts of GHGs are enough to absorb all the ultraviolet light/heat as if the air is saturated with enough GHGs to do that. So, adding more GHGs has very, very little effect.]

We don't know why it happened, or why it stopped. It may have been due to continental drift or astronomical events we have not yet identified. [It doesn't matter how it started, it only matters that it happened, and how it ended.]

That makes no sense. [Did I leave out the word volcanoes released enough CO2?]

But it [=the amount of CO2 in the air would have been very, very high] wasn't. [In the below text it says CO2 must have been 13% of the atmosphere.]

Rain does not wash CO2 out of the air anyway.[Yes it does. See the yellow highlighted text below ]

I'd like to see a reference for that narrative, as it seems highly unlikely. [OK, here are 2.]

As I mentioned before, there is a theoretical threshold effect that would occur at a very low level of CO2. I don't believe it has ever actually been that low, but it's possible the effect occurred at a higher level in the distant past when the sun was cooler and the atmosphere and climate conditions were completely different.

Its absorption spectrum is saturated.

Yes, if the earth were completely frozen, adding a very small amount of CO2 would be enough to thaw some of the ice, releasing some water vapor. Then that water vapor heats the earth much more than the CO2, creating a positive feedback effect -- including, importantly, the ice albedo feedback -- until the earth is completely thawed except near the poles.


Ok, T_P here are some quotes and links to back up my assertions.
. . . My additions are in [brackets].

Snowball Earth in WikipediA

The Cryogenian (from Ancient Greek: κρύος, romanized: krýos, meaning "cold" and γένεσις, romanized: génesis, meaning "birth") is a geologic period that lasted from 720 to 635 million years ago.[6] It forms the second geologic period of the Neoproterozoic Era, preceded by the Tonian Period and followed by the Ediacaran.
The Cryogenian was a time of drastic biosphere changes. After the previous Boring Billion years of stability, at the beginning of Cryogenian the severe Sturtian glaciation began, freezing the entire Earth in a planetary state known as a Snowball Earth. After 70 million years it ended, but was quickly followed by the Marinoan glaciation, which was also a global event. 
...snip...
Breaking out of global glaciation
The carbon dioxide levels necessary to thaw Earth have been estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the atmosphere.[62] Since Earth was almost completely covered with ice,carbon dioxide could not be withdrawn from the atmosphere by release of alkaline metal ions weathering out of siliceous rocks. Over 4 to 30 million years, enough CO2 and methane, mainly emitted by volcanoes but also produced by microbes converting organic carbon trapped under the ice into the gas,[63] would accumulate to finally cause enough greenhouse effect to make surface ice melt in the tropics until a band of permanently ice-free land and water developed; this would be darker than the ice, and thus absorb more energy from the Sun—initiating a "positive feedback".[64]

Scientific American in 1/1/2000 –
Resumed evaporation also helps to warm the atmosphere because water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, and a swollen reservoir of moisture in the atmosphere would drive an enhanced water cycle. Torrential rain would scrub some of the carbon dioxide out of the air in the form of carbonic acid, which would rapidly erode the rock debris left bare as the glaciers subsided. Chemical erosion products would quickly build up in the ocean water, leading to the precipitation of carbonate sediment that would rapidly accumulate on the seafloor and later become rock. Structures preserved in the Namibian cap carbonates indicate that they accumulated extremely rapidly, perhaps in only a few thousand years. For example, crystals of the mineral aragonite, clusters of which are as tall as a person, could precipitate only from seawater highly saturated in calcium carbonate.
... snip...
Once the oceans iced over completely, productivity would have essentially ceased, but no carbon record of this time interval exists because calcium carbonate could not have formed in an ice-covered ocean. 

From the same WikipediA article –
An example of such a reaction is the weathering of wollastonite:
CaSiO3 + 2 CO2 + H2O → Ca2+ + SiO2 + 2 HCO3
The released calcium cations react with the dissolved bicarbonate in the ocean to form calcium carbonate [CaCO3] as a chemically precipitated sedimentary rock. This transfers carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the air into the geosphere, and, in steady-state on geologic time scales, [normally] offsets the carbon dioxide emitted from volcanoes into the atmosphere. [This process would begin again as the ice melted and rain returned. It would precipitate CaCO3 out in enclosed bays where evaporation would remove water. Thus forming the cap carbonates observed.]


Links are =>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth#

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... isms%20die.

So, many of the assertions that TtP so confidently made are not true. At least, according to these 2 sources.
So, 13% of the air being CO2 was needed to melt the ice and end the snowball event. It had to overcome the albedo effect that cools the earth by reflecting the sun's heat energy.


2958 views now.
#15296105
Truth To Power wrote:No. You seem to think you are giving homework assignments to middle school students. You aren't.

Yes, it has, and yes, I did. You just don't know enough of the relevant physics -- or can't summon the willingness -- to understand it.


I will show you how to do it.

First, I make a nice, clear, simple claim that can be written in a sentence or two.

Claim:
Methane emissions are responsible for 15-30% of the observed global warming.

And now I present my evidence:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 199190021O

I give the link so that you or anyone else can verify that the linked page says what I am quoting.

And then I quote the relevant information:

    Methane, a significant atmospheric trace-gas, controls numerous chemical processes and species in the troposphere and stratosphere. Its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere has been increasing at a rate of about 1% per year during the last century, and reached 1·72 ppmv in 1990. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas with significantly adverse environmental impacts. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, it is more than 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. The contribution of methane to global warming between 1880 and 1980 has been estimated to be about 15%, with an increasing share, ∼18%, during the 1980s. In this paper methods for estimating the change in atmospheric concentration of methane, and for predicting its global-warming effect, are described. Influences of some of the suggested emission-control policies are also discussed. Methane concentration in the atmosphere might reach a value of more than 4 ppmv by the end of the next century with no control policies implemented. This could produce an unavoidable long-term mean rise in the surface temperature of the Earth of more than 0·5°C.


I like to bold the most imposing phrase, while leaving the rest of the paragraph to provide context.

And at the end, it does well to provide a short sentence describing how the evidence supports the claim.

In this case, we see that methane emissions were a significant contributor to anthropogenic climate change.
#15296117
Potemkin wrote:An interesting article which may be relevant….

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/194833/ ... ll%20Earth.


Well right off, the age of the crater is given as 2.2B years ago.
There have been at least 3 snowball earth periods. One had 2 separate events in its 70 M year period.

The one I noted in my above post started 720M years ago.
So, it's interesting, but doesn't cause me to need or want to change my post at all.
#15296124
Steve_American wrote:Well right off, the age of the crater is given as 2.2B years ago.
There have been at least 3 snowball earth periods. One had 2 separate events in its 70 M year period.

The one I noted in my above post started 720M years ago.
So, it's interesting, but doesn't cause me to need or want to change my post at all.

Fair enough, but the most recent Snowball (or Slushball) Earth might also have been ended by a meteor collision rather than volcanic CO2 emissions, and we just haven’t found the crater. It’s a possibility. Just goes to show… meteor impacts can be a blessing as well as a curse…. ;)
#15296125
Potemkin wrote:Fair enough, but the most recent Snowball (or Slushball) Earth might also have been ended by a meteor collision rather than volcanic CO2 emissions, and we just haven’t found the crater. It’s a possibility. Just goes to show… meteor impacts can be a blessing as well as a curse…. ;)


I suggest that you read the Scientific American article. It claims you can read it in 15 to 20 min.
It makes a good case for the volcanos released GHGs over 10M to 30M years to end it.
#15297096
Steve_American wrote:@Truth To Power, I'm going to try a different tack to prove that T_P is wrong when he claims that the air is already saturated with GHGs and adding more does nothing.

Geologists have found evidence that borders on proof, that in deep time over 700M years ago, the Earth was in a "snowball" phase. It was almost totally covered by ice or snow down to the equator. This meant that it was very cold because the snow and ice reflected so much of the sun's light and heat back into space. If this is true, then how did such a state end? We know it did end, because we are here now and the Earth in not covered by ice and snow down to the equator.

Gepoligists theorize that if the iceball continues for 10M years then enough CO2 will have been released into the air that it would heat the Earth with a massive greenhouse effect. The amount of CO2 in the air would have been very, very high. It was not washed out by rain because it can't rain when the iceball is in place.
Where the greenhouse effect ended the iceball, it began to rain. This washed to CO2 out of the air, converting it into calcium carbonate, CaCO3, that was washed into the oceans. They got so saturated with CaaCO3 that it precipitated out in enclosed bays and formed layers of limestone 300 feet thick, that still exist. This was before animals evolved, so the limestone has no fossils or worm tracks, etc, in it. You can see in the rock, snowflake like crystals, some are 3 ft across. It is amazing to see.

Now T_P, how can it be that CO2 from volcanoes over millions of years was able to get the greenhouse effect so strong if you are correct that it could melt the ice of the iceball Earth? You claim that at 400p/m of CO2 the air is already saturated with GHGs. Remember, there is very little water vapor because little sublimates or evaporates from the ice because it is so cold.

.


I'm quoting myself to give you the context of this new post.

Below a geologist talks about geology. He casually talks about snowball earth.

He talks about how it ended with volcanoes releasing CO2 over millions of years.

Normally, as it rains, small amounts of CO2 are dissolved into the rain drops. This makes it a weak solution of carbonic acid. This eats the rocks very slowly, and flows to the sea carrying a weak solution of various things like CaCO2 (=calcium carbonate). So, the volcanoes add CO2 slowly and the rain washes it out slowly, while slowly eating (dissolving) the rocks.
. . . However, when there is a snowball earth, it rains very little. So, the volcanoes add CO2 but rain can't wash it out. However, the ice/ice sheets are grinding down the mountains and other rocks. This happens much faster than normal erosion from rain, etc. So, the CO2 would build up in the air until there was enough (estimated to be 13% of the air) to begin to melt the ice. Once it got going, it would accelerate to melt almost all the ice in a few thousand years. During this time there would be rain. This would dissolve a lot more CO2 from air that is 13% CO2. This would be a stronger solution od carbonic acid, so it would eat the rocks faster, and the ice left moraines of ground up rocks to eat. So, a lot of calcium carbonate would be washed into the sea. In enclosed bays it could build up to a concentration which would principate calcium carbonate out forming a layer of limestone hundreds of feet thick.
. . . This was before the Cambrian, so no multicellular animals except things like jelly fish maybe. So, there is no reace of worm borrows in these layers of limestone.
So, over the very many millions of years of the several snowball periods, that were all pretty close together in time, a huge amount of rock was worn away. In between snowball periods some new rock could be formed, but it was/could be ground away so the ice could grind on the rock below. So, many miles of rock were ground down. So, 1 billion years worth of rocks were removed, creating the "missing billion years" of rocks and creating the Great Unconformity.

My point is that even all geologists accept the greenhouse theory and how CO2 heats the climate. This adds another huge number of dupes of, or supporters of, the theory of climate change, or as TTP would call it the Climate Change Conspiracy.




.3335 views now
#15297104
Steve_American wrote:Bullcrap.

Fact. As I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, in simple, grammatical English, the fact that it took more than two orders of magnitude more CO2 just to nudge the temperature above freezing proves that doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling CO2 will have very little effect on temperature -- as actual physical events continue to prove.
#15297106
Truth To Power wrote:Fact. As I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, in simple, grammatical English, the fact that it took more than two orders of magnitude more CO2 just to nudge the temperature above freezing proves that doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling CO2 will have very little effect on temperature -- as actual physical events continue to prove.


OK, now I can reply, because now you actually said something.

You are doing a calculation with your gut. Sort of like a "gut feeling".

The flaw in your reasoning is that you don't understand why the earth is covered with snow and ice. The reason is that the snow and ice are white and reflect 90% or more of the sun's energy back into space before it heats up the rocks or water. This is totally different from the situation now. So, your gut is useless as a guide.

IIRC, I read once in a snowball earth article decades ago, that if the eart gets ice and snow from the 60 deg. latitude to both poles, then so much of the dun's energy s reflected that the rest of the planet will freeze over almost no matter how much GHGs are in the air. That should help you understand the awesome power of the albedo effect.

However, your position is set, so you must find a way to say I'm wrong.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

Nearly 730,000 moved to the Sunshine State between[…]

Attitude is important. Will is important. 100%. […]

The website also does not make the inference that […]

On the other hand, if artificial intelligence was […]