Apocalyptic Methane Threat Looms: 418 Seismic Events This Month Already
Methane is the greatest threat of glaciers that are melting from global warming and possibly triggerig some 418 seismic events already during January, according to scientists’ reports released Friday.
Earth has experienced a 25 percent increase in seismic activity has been recorded in 2014, compared to last year’s average.
A domino effect could be occurring, according to scientists, who link global warming to the seismic activity, seafloor landslides and methane release.
“The melting of glaciers driven by global warming portends a seismically turbulent future,” reported Worldwatch Institute Friday. “When glaciers melt, the massive weight on the Earth’s crust is reduced, and the crust ‘bounces’ back in what scientists call an ‘isostatic rebound.’
That process can reactivate faults, increase seismic activity, and lift pressure on magma chambers that feed volcanoes.
This is not an unprecedented event, says Worldwatch Institute. It’s happened several times throughout Earth’s history, and evidence suggests that it is starting to happen again.
Could increased seismic activity and methane at the Bayou Corne 26-acre sinkhole be connected to today’s warming Gulf waters?
“I do not think there is any correlation between seismic activity at Bayou Corne and global warming,” seismologist Steve Horton told Dupré in an email Friday..
Some scientists even blamed Hurricane Katrina on this warming, otherwise unable to explain an unnatural hot spot that appeared on weather maps in the Gulf just south of New Orleans a few days before the storm was attracted to that point.
That said, however, 2013 research showed Louisiana’s coast faces the highest rate of sea-level rise worldwide, as reported by Bob Marshall for the Times Picayune in a disturbing article.
NOAA’s Tim Osborn, an 18-year Louisiana coastal surveys veteran, and Steve Gill, senior scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, had spelled out the grim reality in The Lens.
“When new data on the rate of coastal subsidence is married with updated projections of sea-level rise, the southeast corner of Louisiana looks likely to be under at least 4.3 feet of gulf water by the end of the century,” Marshall reported in his stunning article.
At that rate, projects planned in Louisiana’s coastal Master Plan, that incorporated worst-case scenarios for relative sea-level rise calculated in 2011, would be swamped. (Louisiana’s estimates of sea-level rise and subsidence are on page 83 of the Master Plan.)
Marshall reported another shocker:
For decades coastal planners used that Grand Isle gauge as the benchmark for the worst case of local sea-level rise because it was one of the highest in the world. But as surveying crews began using more advanced instruments, they made a troubling discovery.Readings at a distance inland were even worse than at Grand Isle. “For example,” Osborn said, “we have rates of 11.2 millimeters [almost half an inch per year] along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain—the metro New Orleans area. And inside the city we have places with almost [a half-inch] per year.“So when we looked at the averages we were getting inside the coast, we realized the current figure we should be using for [southeastern] Louisiana is 11.2 millimeters [a half inch].”The news got only more bleak when NOAA began using the new technologies to update past rates of local subsidence and then fed those numbers into studies projecting future rates.
Worldwatch Institute scientists say today, “Of course, not every volcanic eruption and earthquake in the years to come will have a climate-change link.”
The scientists there are, however, eyeing glaciers where active faults coincide,such as the Alps, Himalayas, and Rocky Mountains. Could this melted glacial water have the same pressure impact as the fault system further south in the United States, in Louisiana, where the 1-mile by 3-mile Napoleonville Salt Dome’s edge is collapsing?
End Of The Ice Age Brought Seafloor Landslides
The subtle surface changes revealed in the new study, published in the Dec. 13 issue of the journal Geology, could improve models of how the sinkhole formed, Jones said. “I think this can tell you something about the path between the cavern collapse, which is about a mile deep, and the surface,” she said. The sideways flow was like water slipping into a bathtub drain, Jones said. “The fact that the movement was toward a center point might tell you something about the geometry of the path that went down to the void,” she said. The subtle flow forms a pattern like a two-leafed clover, consistent with a cavern sidewall collapse as suspected by the USGS, Jones and NASA colleague Ronald Blom report.
Bill McGuire, Climate Change: Tearing the Earth Apart?, New Scientist, 26 May 2006,
Link: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19025531.300.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,599,283,233 |
| Stories: | 8,138,630 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
Before this raises the hair on the back of your necks, please note that I do long for these “key” scientists to factor military climate change manipulation in their work and provide analysis based on THAT, too.
Are you awaiting the Gov. sponsored paychecks, that sponsor (i.e. pay for) the “key” scientists & military… to come to an end?
For instance… (i.e. an example) The only reason any so termed “scientist” will follow the “Global Warming” lie trail is because their lazy a$$ lacks true “research”… only to collect a fat comfy “grant” pay check.
It’s easier to collect a pay check than to seek the truth.
Don’t expect a sold out soul, to abandon comfort and greed.
What raises the hair on the back of my neck are ludicrous claims about global warming and glaciers melting. You have no evidence for this claim, Deborah Dupre. And 3 weeks into the new year you’re claiming a substantial uptick in seismic activity. You might be accurate but these things have a tendency to average out over time.
Let go of HAARP already, it’s gone the way of the Dodo bird.
Mayhem clearly doesn’t read the scientific literature. The debate is over. Over 97% of climate scientists say global warming, due mostly to burning fossil fuels, is causing major climate changes (which anyone can see if they look around them). They agree that we are already in for unavoidable catastrophic impacts, many of which are already occurring, because of current greenhouse gas levels and temperatures, and they will get worse even if we stop burning carbon today. Worse yet, human injection of greenhouse gases continues to accelerate with no sign of stopping.
Mayhem truly merits his moniker when he shouts “False alarm” in a burning theater. The only remaining denialists are the polluters like the Kochs, their cronies, and those duped by them.
The scientific literature? Do you mean like the data set that InLikeFlint tabled? What do you say to the fact that for most of the last 10,000 years it has been warmer than today?
Come on now, paul brown, i did my bit… er… sort of. Don’t be skulking off with your tail between your legs. Put up your argument for how CO2 causes AGW, i could use a good laugh. Green house gasses, for example, do you know how they got that name?
Your theater analogy is rude, your denier accusation is offensive and calling me a polluter was ignorant. Perhaps Deborah might lecture you on your manners rather than being overly defensive toward my initial comment.
Deborah!
Just reporting scientists’ findings, sir. Have some better schooled reports by scientists that you’d like to share as a constructive measure instead of personal attacking? Please email them to me or better yet, post them here for all of us to have the scoop asap.
This place is, after all, an independent learning forum – not a shoot-the-messenger target field.
Thank you, Mayheim.
Personal attack, Deborah? That’s a little precious and very unfair. I scoffed at your claims and your lack of evidence for them. So now; put something on the table that we might be able to continue. The data in your story shows tremors around a sinkhole. That’s been happening since the sinkhole got started. I don’t have to look far for the first scientific opinion that supports my arguments.
Your article contains this…
Seismologist Steve Horton, who is a key scientist working on the sinkhole response team, says what appears to be increased activity is actually not.
“The seismicity rate at Bayou Corne is very low since January 4 or 5,” Horton told Dupré Friday. “There has been a lot of work related noise on the helicorders for the past couple of weeks.”
… yet your headline reads…
“Apocalyptic Methane Threat Looms: 418 Seismic Events This Month Already”
… so it’s Deborah Dupree versus Steve Horton near as i can tell.
To funny how people like Mayhem (just look at his name) and In Like Flint the person who bashes most anyone around here. The effort they spend is refreshingly reflective of who they desperately hold on the the myth that everything is normal, laughable!!!
I agree, friends2you, and then there’s those how (get it?) put their two cents worth in, by way of ad hominem. Who seem unable to make a credible, let alone legible, argument. Those types deserve to be laughed at too.
If you could spare a little more of your precious time there’s robust science to be laughed at further down this blog roll.
… and it’s Sir Mayhem, that should be obvious. Heck; even Deborah knows that.
Mayhem, where did you get the info that HAARP is gone? Last info I recently got shows that there is 183 HAARP installations around the globe.
Thank you, Wayne. HAARP plus Full Spectrum Dominance are perfect duos for triggering or exacerbating global weather manipulation, destruction and chaos.
HAARP is laughable but i get that some folk just love being scared of the bogeyman. HAARP was shut down because it failed, let it go, it’ll be good for you in the long run.
Either that or put up your evidence. I’m a counter puncher and i delight in taking your evidence and exposing it’s lack of veracity. I like to mock and deride too but you’ll get used to that.
183 installations, and zero proof that any of it managed to affect the weather. You have been called out, wayne.
Not sure about HAARP, but I’m not convinced of AGW. This is the only data set that I have any confidence in as far as a historical temperature reconstruction:
Greenland GISP2 Ice Core – Last 10,000 Years Interglacial Temperature
/contributor/upload/190814/images/gisp-last-10000-new.png
It’s going down. I don’t think anyone can refute that obvious fact. Believe what you want, but the facts of the matter are now in plain view as far as I’m concerned.
Agreed
Folks, the real science is available on Web sites of real scientists, and in their original publications. Literally thousands of dedicated scientists publish thousands of peer-reviewed papers based on advanced research techniques every year, piecing together the story of global warming. That information is fully available to the public.
I read much of that original research, in top scientific journals such as Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Philosophical Transactions, as well as summaries written in easily understood lay language in books and Web sites of such organizations as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Laboratory, Union of Concerned Scientists, NASA, the UK’s Met Office, NOAA, and many more.
The daily media do a terrible job of covering climate change because they’re controlled by the industries most responsible for global warming, but nevertheless there are accurate articles about the issue in National Geographic, Scientific American, NewScientist, Bloomberg, Forbes, Christian Science News, USA Today, Time, and many others. To their credit, many media sources are no longer giving denialists equal time because the debate is over.
The United Nations has first-hand experience dealing with the tragic consequences of climate change around the world. The US is one of the countries that is most seriously affected. The insurance industry takes climate change very seriously, because they are having to deal with massive damage claims. Governments around the world are having to deal with the realities on the ground.
If nine out of ten doctors tell you you have a serious illness, you should learn about it from the experts, seek advice on treatment, and start treatment immediately.
I urge readers to educate themselves on this issue. They can subscribe to my free daily email newslink service that provides access to news on global warming and other topics by contacting me at [email protected].
Almost every title you post is “apocalyptic ” or “end of the world” . Best way to make people click on your post then usually get disappointed with BS.
Even the IPCC admits there hasn’t been warming in 17 years, and the IPCC is in the business of AGW alarmism.
“The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office”
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-standstill/
Here’s a graph: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html
This means NOTHING you see is caused by global warming. It means the debate IS over, in favor of those who saw through this scam from the start.
Science is not a brand name. It is facts and logic. And, as qualified experts have published: increased carbon dioxide does not increase water vapor in the atmosphere, which AGW depends on.
Also, it has been shown that heat does not flow from the cold upper atmosphere down to the warm lower atmosphere, let alone warm the surface. I’d say “2nd law of thermodynamics,” as Gerlich and Tscheuschner did, but that’s a very unpopular law of nature in pseudo-science land.
KATRINA came ashore as a run of the mill category 3 storm. The surge did not overtop the levees; there were breaks in levees.
Subsidence and erosion in Louisiana are not properly called “sea level rise.” Sea level hasn’t risen in 50 years.
And the media to the contrary, the Greenland ice sheet is getting colder, not warmer.
And Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing and is reaching record extent year after year.
And Arctic sea ice extent has increased dramatically over last year.
And the ice is important, because albedo DOES affect weather and climate.
The surge did overtop the levees. In Plaquemines Parish, the storm surge overtopped levees on the Mississippi created flooding that had dead cows hanging from trees. The surge nearly topped the massive river levees in New Orleans, reaching within one foot of the levee tops at the Gretna gauge. What broke were the poorly constructed sea walls driven into mounds of dirt along drainage canals. The river levees were topped south of the city. A slightly stronger storm and they would have overtopped in Metro New Orleans as well.
Yeah, Plaquemines Parish, the same levees that got overtopped by category 2 Isaac a couple of years ago.
And don’t forget the runaway barge that caused a breach.
“…a stronger storm” doesn’t count. Of course a stronger storm, like say 1969′s Hurricane Camille, would flood the city. Or the 1935 Labor Day storm in the Florida Keys. You know, big, powerful category 5 storms.
Please, get your facts straight. Regarding Isaac, you’re talking about Braithwaite in St. Bernard Parish on the East Bank, much further South and outside of the flood protection system.. I am talking about the levees that were overtopped as far North as Belle Chasse, in Plaquemines Parish on the Westbank, a suburb of New Orleans. As I stated, we were only a foot from overtopping in Gretna with the “run of the mill Category 3″ that actually made landfall in Pearl River, Mississippi, not New Orleans. Sea-level rise is real, whether you want to believe it or not.
Usefuleater, the only unusual thing about hurricanes these days is the relative lack of them.
Notice the Sea Level Research Group of the University of Colorado must resort to the fraud of adding 0.3 mm per year to the actual data. Others have made similar frauds. Even so:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/sea-level-still-not-cooperating-with-predictions/ << actual data showing sea level lower than it was 8 years ago.
There is no sea level rise. There is subsidence in Louisiana, as always. And erosion.
Like I said, if you want to contemplate a real hurricane, contemplate Camille in 1969. It pushed water miles inland with its 24 foot storm surge and 190 mile per hour sustained winds. Or consider the Labor Day hurricane in the Keys of 1935.
And do look up past hurricane seasons for numbers of storms and strengths.
I live quite close the the Gulf of Mexico, and it's not rising, okay?
Okay the link is 2012 numbers, for sea level, satellite measurements. So, that’s before it was disclosed that US is fraudulently adding 0.3 mm per year.
I don;t want to sound harsh, but I’m afraid you illustrate the folly of using inaccurate sources. You have patched together fallacies from a number of unreliable sources. All of the denialist claims you cite, and many others, have been thoroughly debunked, and disproofs are easily available from real scientists (those who do the research) on the Web.
Your first link is to an article that is, frankly, trash. The “pause” in surface temperature increases has been explained: first, there have been similar fluctuations in the warming trend over the last 70 years but the overall trend remains the same, net warming continues to increase, and recently the oceans have been taking up a larger share of the burden: http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html. The Daily Mail is one of Britain’s worst purveyors of yellow journalism, not just regarding climate change.
You don’t seem to understand what you’re talking about with regard to CO2 and water vapor or thermodynamics. I’ve taken courses exclusively devoted to thermodynamics.
Simply put, for the most part warming occurs where sunlight strikes the surface of land and sea, and not enough heat is lost through infrared radiation into space because greenhouse gases absorb the infrared energy, trapping it. The second law of thermodynamics, which you appear not to understand, has nothing to do with it.
Your Katrina remark has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Although there is often subsidence at coastlines that are flooding, partly due to offshore landslides, sea level rise is undisputed among genuine earth scientists (people who do the actual research and publish in peer-reviewed journals, not the amateurs who snipe at findings they don’t like)
Contrary to the denialist snippets you quote, , the Greenland Ice “sheet”, two miles thick, is melting faster and faster, pouring huge amounts of cold freshwater into the ocean and affecting currents there. It is also causing a rebound of the tectonic plate. The Antarctic is melting, calving increasing amounts of ice into the sea (hence more sea ice). A huge portion broke off a few years ago and an even larger one is in process of doing the same.
And yes, albedo is important because it reflects sunlight, which affects global temperatures, and hence weather and climate. And Albedo is crashing because the ice is melting. That’s why the Arctic is opening up to shipping, and disastrously, to oil exploitation.
In summary, readers should beware of trolls bearing glib denials. The best thing is to check with the researchers who have spent an average of about twelve years of hard training after high school, who work incredibly hard doing very difficult work, often under hazardous conditions, and have to pass the scrutiny of other scientists with whom they compete for scarce funding and in order to publish their research results.
These people put most of us to shame with regard to hard work and integrity, and we should be grateful to them. We should also use the fruits of their work and be deeply skeptical of every sneer and gibe of trolls and shills of the denialist industry – which is almost as well funded as the climatologists they attack.
Paul the first link I posted is pro-AGW. I quoted the one factual statement they made.
If you mean the second article, I’m afraid you can’t refute something by calling it “trash.”
The Greenland ice sheet is well below freezing and getting colder year by year.
Ice is not melting. Try to keep up. Sea ice extent is increasing at both poles. And it has been increasing at the south pole for many years.
But if ice extent WERE decreasing, it wouldn’t be on account of global warming. You see,
the AGW crowd made an issue of the global average temperature. And it hasn’t gone up lately. It’s gone down a bit.
If you want to dispute that you need some numbers, preferably on an easy to read graph.
Like the one I gave you a link to, for the average temperature since 1997.
The “long term trend” you speak of is provably the result of adjusting hot temperatures from the past DOWNWARD. Not just once, but twice. And, by replacing actual measurement with computer models using only the warmest location thermometers on the ground.
Nothing I’ve said has been or can be refuted by you, with facts.
Paul, I’m sorry to say your arguments above are refuted by the one graph of the GISP2 data set I posted a link to further up in the discussion thread. There is no global warming. There is just the relentless ice age cycle of 100,000 year ice ages interrupted by 10-15 thousand year interglacials. That cycle has been going like clockwork for the last 500,000 years:
/contributor/upload/190814/images/ice-age-cycle.jpg
The only warming we’ve seen in the last 150 years or so is when we warmed back up after the Little Ice Age, which ended in about 1850. Facts will trump defective computer models every time.
Do you mean like the ‘Scientists’ aboard Global warming’s glorious ship of fools? Do you need a link or have you taken the blinkers from your favourite search engine, paul?
Qoate from the Article: “otherwise unable to explain an unnatural hot spot that appeared on weather maps in the Gulf just south of New Orleans a few days before the storm was attracted to that point.”
Can anyone guess what the hot spots were? That’s right…all together class…HARRP.
More disturbing..HARRPS been online again and very active. Go to HARRPS website and look at the current map…you will see hot spots in and around, New Orelans and Nthrn part of Cali. What’s happening or has happened in these spots lately? That’s right…earthquakes and fire and a polar vortex. Weather warfare and plans to bring the Navy’s future US to life.
They…whose they!? The evil bastards involved…think we’re still asleep, however…Eye’s wide open, not shut.
Thank you. HAARP was the ONLY explanation I could find in 2005 after a scientist drew Times Picayune readers’ attention to this on the radar map – BEFORE Katrina hit but people were being warned about it. It was perfectly clear to see the hot spot. He drew attention to it and exclaimed, “That is not normal!’
Readers, if you accept the non-facts from global warming deniers we will continue to go down the slippery slope to runaway global warming and extinction. The denial industry is better funded than the real information providers to get their stories out, but accurate information is available. Please read the accounts of real scientists doing real research on real problems, instead of distortions and lies by people paid to deny global warming and climate change. Here are some links to their sites, which make easy and fascinating reading (better than TV!)
Global warming: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/08_1.shtml
Effects of global warming: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/
Global warming “pause” hoax: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
greenhouse gases: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Space_for_our_climate/Our_living_planet_Earth_s_carbon_dioxide_breathing_seen_from_space
Ice sheets: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
Albedo: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.albedo
Methane release: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
Abrupt climate change (a more accurate term than “runaway global warming”): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html
Mr. Brown…
For your information, the READERS of which you speak are numbered squarely in the camp with Flint and Lifels.
Any other condescending insults you have should be directed elsewhere. Perhaps you and your ilk would have better luck selling your wares someplace where folks actually do watch television.
You’re like the WWII Japanese soldier who was left behind in the Philippines for 30 years after the war had ended. No matter who told him the war was over, he refused to abandon his post until he was relieved by his commanding officer.
Your commanding officer, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., esq., has been compromised and cannot be relied upon for useful information.
I do not envy your predicament, but you would go a long way toward ameliorating your condition if you canned the patronizing.
Your friendly neighborhood Global Warming Denier,
BEEF
Paul Brown no amount of carbon dioxide, or methane, will change your climate. The lower atmosphere is saturated at the wavelengths in question, due to water vapor.
The upper atmosphere is colder than the lower atmosphere. If we were talking about reflecting radiation like a mirror, that would be one thing. But absorption and re-radiation brings the 2nd law of thermodynamics into action. In industry, in kilns, furnaces, power plants, there is no such thing as radiation from a colder substance transferring heat to a warmer one.
The universe doesn’t work that way. Not in furnaces or kilns or power plants or nuclear reactors or anywhere. Heat flows from hotter to colder, period. It’s a proved fact.
And NASA demonstrated this for us recently by measuring how much infra-red went right back into space after a solar flare.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
The CO2 and the NO did NOT radiate this energy downward into the atmosphere. You can pretend it works otherwise if you want, but there is the measurement. Energy in and energy out, measured.
Your red line, in case you didn’t know, is based on computer models that predict an increase in water vapor with an increase in carbon dioxide. It has never happened.
Also there is the assumption that more water vapor would “trap” more heat. But the atmosphere doesn’t warm the ocean or land overall. Think how cold the deep ocean is.
And how much more mass it has than the atmosphere. If heat could flow from the air into the sea, the temperatures would equalize, and we would be very cold.
The arctic — the Barents sea in particular – has had relatively low sea ice extent in recent years, but as you can easily find out, it increased dramatically over last year.
Carbon dioxide has been much higher in the past – the dinosaurs prospered.
And global temperature does not correlate to carbon dioxide levels, as the last 17 years have PROVED.
Type “record antarctic ice” into your favourite search engine and have a look at who provides the information. At least some of those sites are credible and together they add up to rather damning evidence regarding the warming to doom hoax.
Come on paul brown why are you clinging to a lie that can be exposed in a trifling? Do you think the world is completely dumb? You’re missing out on the awakening for which we have the interweb to thank.
Mayhem: AGW denier.
Readers: no matter how often the global warming deniers repeat their propaganda, the facts are available from real scientists who do real climate research, at the sites I have provided links for. Please ignore the trolls and just go to those sites – just a click away, and there are lots more real scientists who desperately want you to read the real science.
I don’t know if the majority of readers are global warming deniers, but that doesn’t change the facts.
You want to talk science, paul brown, come at me bro. I will put my welding certificate up against all the doctorates and degrees you could mention and i usually insist upon science being defined to my satisfaction. Can you give me the concise definition that withstands all scrutiny? Here’s the first bit “Science is:”. There’s only 6 more words required, shouldn’t be too hard.
I have taken the time to read all of your links and here is my opinion…
Earthguide: Goes into a discourse on CO2 and states that our contribution makes up much less than 1% of our atmosphere. Is that a fair way to admit that this CO2 accounts for 0.0015%. Please note i do not mean 0.15%, the decimal point is in the right place. According to the Vostok Ice Core Data CO2 levels follow temperature increases by about 400 years. I will agree that climate change is real and that global warming stopped nearly 20 years ago. AGW remains a hoax. Deluded much?
UoCS: Yet to come around to the truth because it will ruin their agenda. They conclude that even though none of their models predicted the, nearly two decade long, drop in temperatures that AGW is still on and they are not in the least surprised. Come on, really?
Met Office News Blog: Here we find those with a vested interest arguing averages to distract from reality. Their conclusion is that the last 17 years proves nothing and the combined decadal averages shows warming of 0.03° C. Do you get that? They are allowing the 3 years, that concluded the last stint of global warming, to influence, the reality of, the following 17 years. We’ll fry! It’s doom on!
Our Living Planet: This site goes all “CO2 is evil” on us again but i’m yet to see any convincing argument that one of the fundamental building blocks of all life is, in any way, undesirable.
NSIDC: Reports that ice continued to shrink right up to the end of global warming. Surprised? I’m not, i guessed that ice responds to temperature change. Whats happened since 2007? The Antarctic is setting 200 year records and the Arctic has gained 50% in that time. Fact Jack, look it up.
NCSU: Yeah a dictionary will define ‘albedo’ just as well; your point? And yes frozen vegetable matter will release methane when defrosted; again, your point?
NOAA: This article is discussing the abruptness of climate change as witnessed by the Vostok data and speaks mostly about historical patterns and makes no attempt to relate this to todays situation.
My conclusion is that you don’t know much about this topic, most of your links are pointless and i predict you’ll ignore my considerable effort and simply restate your truth, irrespective it being a lie.
Try and drive your man made warming wedge into the data, paul brown…
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
Explain this warming in a way that makes the data lie, paul brown…
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
You want science, you got it in spades. What might you have left?
Readers: First, let me respond to the accusation of arrogance. My objective is to help people who are willing to learn to read what the scientists say. Our children’s lives depend on it.I’m humbled by the intellect and integrity of real climatologists, but not by snipers who just relay soundbites from the polluters who are killing life on this planet. Who’s arrogant? You decide.
I don’t know much about welding, so I go to a welder when I want answers. I respect his or her expertise. My own expertise is brain science: I’ve taught health professionals for 35 years. I do know a bit about global warming, mass extinction and overpopulation. I’ve taken enough courses from other experts on related subjects, including physics, math, chemistry, and biology, that equip me to read the original scientific papers. I wrote a book on those subjects, Notes from a Dying Planet, in 2006, but far better books by the real experts are on the market.
I rely on the real climate experts for what I say because I’m not a climatologist. Mayhem apparently has no respect for expertise. That’s arrogance. Would you go to him to have your teeth filled or for medical care? Why should you seek his input on global warming?
It takes longer to explain science than to dismiss it with one-liners, so bear with me as I respond to Mayhem’s distortions (the others are mostly just name-calling).
Earthguide makes it clear that although CO2 has a low concentration in the atmosphere, it has a major impact on how much heat is lost to space (think: the ion channels in your skin cells make up only a tiny fraction of your skin, but you would die without them). It also describes the nature of the scientific evidence that denialists dismiss, and makes clear that humans have caused a big increase in CO2, and that has affected global temperature. The page is a little out of date: CO2 had risen from 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 367 in 2000. It’s now around 400, well above the red line at 350!
Mayhem misleads on the relation between CO2 and warming. True, in the past, CO2 lagged behind warming because warming causes CO2 release (part of a positive feedback between temperature and CO2 (except see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html, a paper which shows 90% of warming is due to CO2 feedback). He neglects to mention that since we began burning fossil fuels, man-made CO2 increases have preceded warming. Figure 2 of https://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3EiMW_z-PhO3o7UHRN4xY6Lo5t3Q%26oi%3Dscholarr&rct=j&sa=X&ei=cI7cUoTYLsqqsATh3IDwAg&ved=0CCsQgAMoADAA&q=hansen+anthropogenic+warming+lags+co2&usg=AFQjCNEHVs2xWSxmneM8ZDfePvOeHuVWSA&cad=rja clearly shows CO2 increase preceding temperature.
Mayhem distrusts UoCS’s agenda. This is the Union of Concerned Scientists. I can’t find the quote he refers to but I remember seeing it somewhere. The point is that surface temperatures can show periods of stasis within an overall warming trend.
Mayhem also distrusts the Met Office. Their site refutes the lie in The Australian, a Rupert Murdoch-owned rag, and shows clearly the hottest years on record are mostly recent ones. Does the reader perhaps begin to distrust Mayhem’s agenda? Also, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf, where a scientific paper explains that total heating of the planet has continued even though surface heating has plateaued for a while: the oceans are taking up most of the heat, as they normally do, with serious consequences.
I hope readers can see the problems with Mayhem’s critique of Our Living Planet’s interesting and informative article on carbon dioxide: ” i’m yet to see any convincing argument that one of the fundamental building blocks of all life is, in any way, undesirable.” Oh? Aside from all the toxic compounds produced by living organisms, the deaths of thousands from CO2 burps from volcanic lakes, and thousands of people sickened and killed by petrochemical pollutants, I think this is an insult to readers’ intelligence, and certainly not a refutation of anything.
NSIDC: The suggestions that Antarctic ice is setting 200 year records (implying record highs) and the Arctic has gained 50% in that time are not borne out by any peer-reviewed scientific publications! See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/tag/arctic-sea-ice/ for a graph illustrating a steady decline of Arctic sea ice from 1979 through 2012, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcongrexprojects.com%2Fdocs%2F12c20_docs2%2F1-esa-clic-shepherd.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D2&ei=E4LcUo7NBNC1sASbnYGwAg&usg=AFQjCNESgJnDiOKW4-gfkdCQ2mfU5kZj-w&sig2=gcWWn8tltFzA3DEGc_bHWA&bvm=bv.59568121,d.cWc, which shows Greenland and the Antarctic are still losing ice.
NCSU: Mayhem doesn’t understand the point: the warming Arctic will emit gigatons of CO2 and exacerbate warming, which will further exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions, which… etc. Mayhem doesn’t get it? The average reader certainly can.
NOAA: on the contrary, they indicate that abrupt climate change can occur any time: “Recent studies such as the National Academy of Science’s Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises note that it is not a matter if such events will occur in the future but when.”
So I hope readers will re-read Mayhem’s conclusions and agree they’re out of line. Enjoy reading the links and spread the word: the climatologists have important messages for us.
You’ve done rather well, much to my surprise. So you call a 0.0015% contribution “Big” Hmm, okay. Tell me, if you can, how the term greenhouse became applicable to these gases. Or how i can grow grass in coal piles but not fertilizer piles.
Your lake burp argument isn’t at all clever, who’s saying we can survive on pure CO2? We are talking about concentrations as high as 400 ppm or 0.0004%. Next you’ll claim i said pollution is good. Our burning fossil fuels pales in comparison to wild fires and volcanic activity and it is delusional to think otherwise.
Then there’s the ice: Here’s a clearer graph that shows the Arctic is within 2 std dev’s and is not out of the ordinary. Not by a long shot and it remains a fact that this ice has increased 50% since Al Gore made the prediction that it would be all gone by now.
http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/09/21/antarctic_ice_nsidc.jpg
As for the Antarctic: there’s this.
http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/09/21/antarctic_ice_nsidc.jpg
Sure looks like an all time record from where i’m sitting, beyond the 2SD threshold of significance to boot. See i told you you had nothing and you can’t even define science concisely.
Oh dear, try this link for the Arctic…
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
If you don’t mind, paul brown, how much did you pay for this education? That you could have gotten for free at your local public library. Does it sound like i’m disparaging the ‘Sciences’? Good, i’m on target then.
Science is that which we can prove, repeatedly. Mayhem.
Now then: unless ‘Science’ can meet my criteria i will believe nothing that i hear and very little of what i see. Did you know, paul, that a peer reviewed journal was recently caught fudging? Yes: they knowingly allowed erroneous amendments to stand. Amendments required by the State no less.
…………………….. KNOWINGLY ALLOWED …………………………
I first learned to distrust the peer review process when i studied upon the horrors of Vivisection as an aside whilst doing due diligence regarding the evil vaccination industry.
And finally: is this how you show respect to your readers? By going all stream of consciousness and personal rather than putting up an effective argument. Your panic is showing.
Many here have seen me in this role, you are the only one new to this, paul brown. My boast is that i can make PhD’s run for cover. Have them come at me bro you’re hardly worth the effort.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/ here is a bit of proof of the kind of fraud that we’ve been seeing for the last 2 decades.
Readers, Lifels has consistently relied on global deniers for your information, rather than climate scientists. Stick with the real scientists reporting on the real science.
Why don’t you actually address the men who are addressing you and stop presuming to condescend to your imaginary schoolchildren?
Why are you infatuated with experts, so-called?
Are you not keen enough a student of the human seed, not to mention the human condition, to have arrived at a sound perception of these so-called experts?
Do you take as effusive a view of experts in the pharmaceutical industry? I bet you do. How about the experts of Keynsian Economics? I’ll bet they’re your heroes too, aren’t they.
For someone who has been around for as long as you claim to have been, you haven’t gotten very far at all in your journey. I can get a heck of a dissertation on Catholic Doctrine from a Jesuit Cardinal, him being an expert and such, but why would I. Qui bono?
A direct question for you, to which I will not be expecting a direct answer:
Have you bothered to identify the actors who benefit the most from the message of AGW?
Have you bothered to examine their admitted agenda?
Have you bothered to examine their history?
You wrote:
“Stick with the real scientists reporting on the real science.”
Guess what. Some of us have. And some of us really don’t like what we see.
Maybe you should have paid better attention in school, and spent less time writing books and presuming to teach others. Your meaningful learning has yet to begin.
Paul Brown “science” is not a brand name. It is not Soviet style “correct” either. You cannot prove or refute anything by name-calling.
I’ve given you some original common sense analysis, and links to valuable information produced by the government. You would do well to pay attention to the objective and scientific persons who can help you understand exactly how you have been bamboozled.
Well, readers, I’ll be happy to refer you to relevant materials by legitimate climatologists, and again recommend that you check what they have to say when you see anti-global warming claims in the media or on sites like this.
Again, I hate to attack Mayhem the Welder, but look at what he’s written. He’s a self-described hater of vivisection (a Victorian term for animal experimentation), vaccination, and anthropogenic global warming. He disapproves of the peer-review process because reviewers and editors sometimes violate ethical standards. He dismisses the value of expertise or the hard work of real education. He only accepts science if it confirms his preconceptions. He prefers to rely on biased sources for his claims, and when confronted with real science by the people who actually do the research, he misrepresents it or dismisses it because he doesn’t like what it says. The only reason to respond to him at all, as I have, is to provide readers more direct access to climatological science.
Science isn’t a popularity contest. It progresses by making mistakes and then correcting them. The peer-review process is fallible, but it’s been crucial for the advances in knowledge in all fields, not just science.
You can do much better than Mayhem, and I certainly hope you do. Our future depends on the people understanding scientific issues that are impacting their lives and the lives of their offspring.
Any other pointers for us before you leave?
No?
Good. The ‘readers’ have spoken.
I’ll presume to speak for some of them.
We’ll take Mayhem and Flint and Lifels 1000 times out of 1000, rejecting you and your ilk.
Your hyper-educated mind has been stuffed with a degrading fog of lies from which you will most likely never escape. Not only did you pay to have it so, but you do obeisance at the altar of your degraders. You then proceed to identify your predicament, not to mention your position, as desirable and worthy of admiration.
Check out the wax on those wings, Icarus.
You are in no way qualified to meet the demands of the task you have presumed to undertake.
My anger at your pointed condescension is put to the side with effort. Instead: here’s a little titbit for your readers, paul brown, i was referencing the NSIDC data, same as you. I read the reports from the fellows who go to the ice and give it a good whack with a big stick. What now of your spurious allegations? How come, with only my Welding Certificate mind, how come i’m running rings around you?
Yes: i do have little respect for any group or anyone who is prepared to overlook or violate ethical standards. Whats the alternative? ‘It’s okay, it’s fine. They mostly get it right, trust them’ Is that what you’re asking your readers to do, paul brown? Really? Hmm.
May i presume from your comment that you are pro Vivisection, Vaccination as well as AGW? You’re not going to make many friends here, my man. Around here we are learning to think for ourselves and smell the manure a mile off. Something stinks around you, paul brown.
I boast some more and say that many here have seen me owning in all 3 of these subjects. Bring it on and don’t worry about your feelings, you can love to attack me for all i care. Bring me the lettered and watch them flee the learned.
You seem to be running out of puff somewhat and keep circling around with your “dear readers: ignore the trolls and concentrate on My voice” silliness. I’ve only just started. I’ve science up the wazoo to show you yet, i’m a counter puncher remember, and i’m saving it until i deem you worthy. So far, not very.
I was thrilled when you disparaged those two new subjects, paul brown, it tells me how easy you are to manage. They are off topic comments and should be politely received as the aside that they obviously were.
On another side: i understand you claim Atheism as your Religion, my question becomes… Did anyone hassle you for that? What i really mean to say is; are you an Evolutionist? You must see how easy it is to distract with twists and turns. With respect for your readers i try to stay largely on point, and to this end, please treat those questions as rhetorical.
You debate poorly and i’m guessing we’re not far from the point when you tell us we’re all deluded with our heads buried in the sand and that you don’t have time to argue with idiots. Seen it before.
guess I’ll just have to stick to the old Tai Chi Qi Gong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI7TVH50GyQ&list=UUPYnLoug71ZPvI3yrfvth7g&feature=c4-overview
Seems that Antarctic SEA ice is inversely, proportionally growing as compared to Arctic SEA ice declining. The PACK ice IS thinner and no one seems to be adding volcanic activity around Antarctica into the equation. Calving is ongoing at the South pole.
So, while you have more, THINNER sea ice, and while an extreme melt off would be consistent with the current decline in global temperatures, as in “air conditioning” the planet, global warming, IMO, is a function of (among other factors) the Earth’s core temperature – and the quakes relate to post-glacial rebound (isostatic decompression). Earth is not the only planet in the solar system that is heating up. Furthermore, no mention of the receding Alpine glaciers?
For the record, Gore is a carbon-credit quack. And, the Vostok ice cores appear to represent an 125 thousand year cycle between rapid Earth temperature maximums followed by extreme and extended glaciation periods – Not AGW, just cycles. Final thought, if not HAARP, who’s to say a satellite couldn’t steer (or produce) a hurricane via laser-based weather modification?
War Pony, try the links folks have posted…or try any source from recent times. Arctic sea ice extent has increased dramatically over last year. Whatever was going on in the Barents Sea,
it’s not happening now.
And Antarctic ice is not thinner, that’s a ridiculous made up thing, as the Ship of Fools AND the icebreaker sent to rescue them discovered. In SUMMER time.
Earth is not heating up, good grief. Not for 17 years. Even the IPCC admits that.
And speaking of non-melting white stuff, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC):
this year’s snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
… what Lifels said.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html – yes, icepack has thinned and calved in Antarctica. One year of increase in SEA ice does not make for a ship of fools.
I think we may be talking about two different things – sea ice versus ice pack. Yes, sea ice around Antarctica has increased. Please see my response to Mayhem below for more on pack ice.
As for the heating of earth’s core, the wobble was only recently acknowledged, but fluid dynamics theory would suggest more friction. The ‘science’ here is not THAT settled or understood.
Throw in the expanding earth theory and post glacial rebound, subtract satellite measurements discounting ice loss under the pack/sheet and – given annual fluctuations – we’re losing ice as evidenced in sea level rise.
Also, the author has a good point regarding methane release since exposed tundra and
(Hit wrong button) – (cont.) “exposed tundra and” erosion are accelerating methane release.
Forgot to mention that the chem-trailers (weather modification, cloud generators) have been hard at work until just recently. Perhaps, they have over-accomplished their mission?
Looks like the chemtrailers picked up speed again over San Diego this past weekend. Dropped something that caused a stir of sorts – but who knows what “they” will drop on us next. Thanks for reading us here, War Pony.
After a week of no activity, they’re back in force here in Houston – sigh.