Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by k scott denison

$
0
0

Hey Bart, I’m really interested in your answers to the following questions:

1. Was the “Frankenstorm” the biggest of all time?
2. If “no” to #1, what was?
3. If “yes” to #1, how do you know?
4. What are the specifications of a storm to qualify as a “Frankenstorm”?
5. How many have ever occurred?
6. What are the categories above and below “Frankenstorm”?
7. Does Al Franken factor into a “Frankenstorm” somehow?
8. For what % of man’s existence have we had satellite images?
9. How did we confirm or deny a storm as a “Frankenstorm” before that?
10. What else are you irrationally afraid of?


Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by David Springer

$
0
0

http://www.amethox.com/

Some actual science can be found above. Anaerobic methane oxidation was discovered in 1974 and is thought to account for up to 90% of methane release from melted clathrate in ocean sediments.

Remarkably the archaebacteria involved have not been isolated for further study.

Life is, if nothing else, opportunistic. The bacteria and especially archaebacteria (a.k.a. extremophiles) have barely begun to be explored. And there’s even smaller forms of pseudo-life such as bacteriophages and prions whose surface has barely been scratched.

There’s more to heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamed of in your philosophy.

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by k scott denison

$
0
0

So R Gates, how repeatable is the climate? You seem to want the AMO to “act the same” today as 1450 years ago. So up until 1450 years ago it always acted the same? Really? And you know how?

In case you’ve never been told, these types of statements sound absurd. They make it appear as if you believe that geologic and paleoclimatic data have high precision and accuracy.

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by kim

$
0
0

The alarmists are all grasping at straws as they cling bitterly to their fears.
And for what?
==========

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by Bob Koss

$
0
0

R. Gates,

Why should I put any confidence in those graphs? Compare them circa 1960. The data differ by about 2 million sq. km. Who screwed up? Just one of them or both?

At least my single day image is reality. It updates every 10 minutes, so you can watch it for the rest of the season if you wish.

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by Faustino

$
0
0

“Life is, if nothing else, opportunistic.” Very, very true. There can never be an “ideal” climate or environment, any change which is detrimental to some creatures will create opportunities for others. Those species which can best adapt will thrive. We humans have always been highly adaptable and innovative, the policies proposed to resist change rather than embrace it seem designed to reduce our capacity to adapt, not enhance it. To the extent that they have slowed growth, they have already done so.

Comment on Open thread weekend by donald Rapp

$
0
0

The world’s population is growing. Energy demand will increase by at least a factor of 4 to 5 by 2100 if the world is prosperous. The only way to reduce future carbon emissions is through widespread global poverty. The nations of the Western World are implementing a plan to achieve this by excessive borrowing. When the international currency system breaks down and the world debt reaches unmanageable proportions, fossil fuel consumption will take a big hit. That might happen before the sea ice disappears.

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by stefanthedenier

$
0
0

methane is harmless:

The good Lord made, methane to be produced as a molecule with other HEAVIER compounds TOGETHER. By itself, methane is odorless; but is very smelly, when produced. The ‘’smelly’’ bit is the organic particles, the sinker; to make it to sink in the ground. When cow / human releases methane; comes out together with 30-50 other different compounds – (depends on what the cow / human has being eating). It’s called: ”MOLECULAR ADHESION” After sinking in the ground; those organic particles disintegrate deep in the soil. Or, together with methane; get eaten

Many times they go to Antarctic, Greenland and bring lots of lies. For you is cheaper to believe them, than to go there in person and see that they are lying. But for methane is NOT necessary – because all of you are producing it! Admit, that it smells, when fresh, is not odorless!

Same as when the cow is belching, or releasing methane from the other end. ‘’METHANEGATE’’ is to cover up the smell. Well, unless the Green People go behind every cow, elephant, bison, sheep and instantly purify the methane = they are lying; by using methane, for destroying the grazing animals. P.s. methane produced from coal doesn’t smell; that’s where the ‘’canary in the coal-mine’’ comes from. In the coal-mine the good Lord didn’t need to invent something, to make methane to sink, because is produced in the ground. Organically produced methane above the ground, is never in a pure form. You don’t need to go and sniff the cow’s exhaust, grass clippings from the lawnmower after a week, smell same as the cows methane. Simple proof of Warmist ‘’Methanegate’’. Please read my post to see what they are really covering up; it will knock your socks off::

Experiment: in a transparent bottle, catch some methane from cow, sheep, or your own; let it on the sunlight for few hours (as long as there is oxygen in the bottle also – to imitate atmosphere. In couple of hours that methane will turn into 2 droplets of water; magic. Methane disintegrates in less than an hour on the sunlight, doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for 10 years!!! http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/methane-ch4/


Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Faustino,

Yes. But overall warmer is better. Life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder. According to AR4, WG1, Chapter 6, there was more carbon tied up in the biosphere when the planet was warmer.

Conclusion: More life when warmer. Life prefers warmer. Warmer is better.

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Methane is created in anoxic sediment and involves the conversion of organic materials biologically. Respiration in these organisms is methane rather than carbon dioxide. They are technically Archean which were associated with hot springs and volcanic vents – hence were known as extremophiles. They are in fact found everywhere oxygen is excluded – including our digestive systems giving rise to a source of great and enduring hilarity. Methane bubbles to the surface of the sediment where it forms methane clathates in the right conditions of pressure and temperature.

Release as methane gas requires a significant change in bottom water temperature. Are we there yet?

‘According to the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (Kennett et al., submitted) episodic atmospheric CH4 emissions resulting from instability of the marine sedimentary methane hydrate (clathrate) reservoir contributed significantly to the distinctive behavior of late Quaternary climate on orbital (Milankovitch) and millennial time scales. Resulting CH4 releases to the atmosphere/ocean system provided crucial amplification to “jump-start” rapid warmings at stadial and glacial terminations that were significantly reinforced by
other greenhouse gases, especially water vapor. Collectively, these changes shifted the climate system into an interglacial/interstadial state.’ http://www.netl.doe.gov/KMD/Cds/disk10/kennett.pdf

It probably happens all the time. The last glacial transition for instance – leading to wild fluctuations in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not captured by the ice records.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Steinthorsdottir_CO2_stomata_2013_zps0180f088.png.html?sort=3&o=2

Thinking it is not part of a very much wider system – or that it is predictable – is mistaken. Predicting an ice free Arctic on linear trends seems pretty optimistic as well.

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by Jim D

Comment on Open thread weekend by Faustino

$
0
0

Much better to keep increasing emissions then.

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

The Arctic has been ice free in the Holocene – it is not particularly interesting in itself.

Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by donaitkin

$
0
0

A great line, whether yours or not!

Comment on What are the factors contributing to the reduction in U.S. carbon emissions? by electric car conversion colorado

$
0
0

My family members all the time say that I am wasting my
time here at net, but I know I am getting knowledge everyday by reading thes fastidious posts.


Comment on Arctic time bomb (?) by Jim D

$
0
0

I don’t know about that. Anyway others are disputing that 2015 is possible. The graph shows it is, which was the point.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

Hey, what’s the BIGGEST scare story?
List in order of SCARINESS.

A harmless exercise in catharsisis
fer frantic Alarmists. Get it off yer chest.

Comment on Addicted to cool (?) by Nabil Swedan

$
0
0

There is plenty of chilled water. As of the missing heat, climatologists have to balance the heat on paper first, which is not balanced yet.

Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“So I’d say that the experiment has not successfully demonstrated that Arrhenius was right in his hypothesis that increased CO2 would cause significant warming.”

WHAT?

Did you see me suggest that his hypothesis was RIGHT.

No you did not.

His hypothesis will never be right, and it will never be wrong.

It will be, like all science, either supported by the evidence or not supported by the evidence.

The only experiment we have votes for his position.

To be sure since we only have one experiment the results, like all results, are open to dispute, argument, revision, refinement, denial, etc etc etc.

But, the evidence does support what he hypothesized.

The sun is going to take a nap here. What will happen?

Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by captdallas 0.8 or less

$
0
0

“British Columbia is currently experiencing a mountain pine beetle epidemic due to natural beetle population cycles, successive mild winters, and an abundance of mature pine forests as a result of fire suppression.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/MPB/gawalko_2004_mount.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire

There has been a renewed interest in biochar, wonder why?
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib48463.pdf

Anthropogenic regulation and liability concerns are factors.

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images