Human Caused Global Warming.

It is unlikely that anything will be done about this reality when even supposedly educational TV shows speak a load of crap about the problem. The program I speak of was on PBS. It was a program called NOVA. The particular episode was called "Earth Emergency." To me, the real emergency was that most of the scientists on it just spoke crap about the problem. Or it was edited to make it appear that way.

On the program they spoke about a zillion times of a "feedback loop" in various aspects of human caused global warming. They also often used the word "reinforce" when speaking about the interactions of these various feedback loops. Which an inaccurate way to describe it. From what I remember, not once did anybody say what a feedback loop actually means. It means that the warmer things get, the faster they will get even warmer.

They also said that methane was around 25% more potent of a greenhouse gas than than CO2. But that is using a 100 year time frame. I don't know what the hell they are talking about with that. Because methane has a half life of around 20 years. Which means that 20 years after its release, half of it would have broken down into just plain old CO2. In reality, using a 20 year time scale, methane is around 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Also, at one point somebody brought up the same old crap about what the earth will be like in the year 2100. But given the exponential increase in HCGW, it is unlikely that there will be any humans around in the year 2050. Along with most of the other life on Earth. Bill Nye did a television show called, "Global Meltdown." In part of it he interviewed an ex-college or university professor who had been studying the problem for about 15 years. His predictions were even more dire than mine. He thought the end could come in as little as 20 years. With methane release being the main culprit. So he decided to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday.

 

Again an advantage to being an old fart. I won't be here to watch Florida, New York City any many, many other places in this world literally go under.

 

There is NO Feedback Loop happening as it is a modeling construct that is now 30 years old idea that has not showed up in the data.

There is NO Climate Emergency either which is very easy to prove as it has been addressed numerous times in various forums including this one where I posted an article months ago on it, here it is for your enjoyment and supported by official data:

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

LINK

=====

Here is a sample,

Deaths from climate-related phenomena are at an all-time low. If you think deaths from climate-related catastrophes are an emergency, please point in the graph below to the start of the “emergency”.



=====

Methane has a tiny effect on the "heat budget" as made clear here:

"Dr. Tom, a most interesting post. I never considered that.

Of course, being a man who checks everyone, I went to MODTRAN to check your assertions. I found the following increases in longwave absorption if we double the methane concentration. Here’s how absorption increases when you double the methane.

Clear Sky Tropics +0.75 W/m2 from doubling of methane
Clear Sky US Standard Atmosphere +0.69 W/m2
Clear Sky Subarctic Winter +0.34 W/m2

Note that these are reduced somewhat if there are clouds. On a global average, then, it seems that a doubling of methane would lead to an increase in absorption of somewhere around half a W/m2 … color me totally unimpressed.

So your claim is upheld by MODTRAN, my congratulations … always more for me to learn, thanks for schooling me on methane.

w."

LINK

=====

Methane (CH4) absorbs very little IR as it is in the low energy area of IR spectrum.

 

And which energy company do you work for. Either directly or indirectly. Why is it that there are those like you at every forum I go to. And worse yet, are always the loudest. I have seen your crap about computer models, or as you put it, "modeling construct" before. I spoke of the program "Earth Emergency." But it wasn't all crap. They talked to some actual scientists in it that were out in the field and taking actual measurements. I have seen other scientists on other programs doing the same thing. They all basically said the same thing. The opposite of what you're saying.

 

Methane just doesn't matter.
Methane: The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas
2014 › 04 › 11 › methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas
radiation that Methane might have absorbed. ... Q: I read that methane is an even ... even worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and cattle are a big source of methane emissions. How are . . .

". . . . Looking at the second graph in the figure, methane (CH4) has narrow absorption bands at 3.3 microns and 7.5 microns (the red lines). CH4 is 20 times more effective an absorber than CO2 – in those bands. However, CH4 is only 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Moreover, both of its bands occur at wavelengths where H2O is already absorbing substantially. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O. The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O. The amount of CH4 must increase 100-fold to make it comparable to H2O.

Because of that, methane is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. The high per-molecule absorption cross section of CH4 makes no difference at all in our real atmosphere. . . . "

 

I can see that you have not offered a reply to the CONTENT of my post.

Cheers

 

There may not be a lot of methane when compared to other gases in the atmosphere. But with methane being 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2, there doesn't have to be. And methane levels are rising. I will show you a graph of it. Surprisingly, despite all the melting tundra and other sources of methane, Humans are directly responsible for about 60% of what is shown.

 

Why should I. It started out with crap. There is no reason to expect the rest to be any different. How about some real science instead. I have the graphs to prove it. Choose your poison. Even you can't claim they are all wrong.














And as I said before, methane is around 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. It is rising too. And incredibly, the direct activities of humans are responsible for around 60% of what is shown.

 

Those graphics have less to do with "real science" than they do with manipulating scales on graph axes to produce the desired message.

 

Methane breaks down after about a decade in the atmosphere to become CO2 and water. It's a nothingburger.

 

I can see that you have not offered a reply to the CONTENT of my post.

Cheers

 

I can see that you have not offered a reply to the CONTENT of my post. Heck I KNOW you didn't look in the WUWT link where NOAA, NASA, EMDT, Satellite data and more official sites and published papers were sourced.

Another sample you didn't see:

Paleo data shows that over the Holocene temperatures have varied widely with little change in CO2, and the current warming started in 1700, long before the modern CO2 increase.



LINK

Cheers

 

He is so taken with CH4 being 86 times more potent gas hyperbole when it hardly absorbs IR at all and in the LOW end of the IR spectrum, CO2 is the dominant gas after Water Vapor methane is a negligible player in the heat budget as pointed out here:

===

Dr. Tom, a most interesting post. I never considered that.
Of course, being a man who checks everyone, I went to MODTRAN to check your assertions. I found the following increases in longwave absorption if we double the methane concentration. Here’s how absorption increases when you double the methane.

Clear Sky Tropics +0.75 W/m2 from doubling of methane
Clear Sky US Standard Atmosphere +0.69 W/m2
Clear Sky Subarctic Winter +0.34 W/m2

Note that these are reduced somewhat if there are clouds. On a global average, then, it seems that a doubling of methane would lead to an increase in absorption of somewhere around half a W/m2 … color me totally unimpressed.
So your claim is upheld by MODTRAN, my congratulations … always more for me to learn, thanks for schooling me on methane.
w.

LINK

 

Regional climates have varied quite a bit over the past 2000 years but the climate over the past 50 years is unique with respect
to the way that 98% of the Earth's surface is hotter than at any time over the past 2000 years.

ttps://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-today-unlike-last-2000-years-climate-shifts

Temperatures across 98 percent of Earth’s surface were hotter at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the previous 2,000 years.

Such nearly universal warming, occurring in lockstep across the planet, is unique to this current era, scientists say. By contrast, other well-known cold and warm snaps of the past, such as the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, were, in fact, regional rather than worldwide.

What’s more, the rate at which temperatures are increasing now far exceeds any previous temperature fluctuations measured in the last two millennia. Those are the conclusions of a trio of new papers examining temperature trends over the last 2,000 years, published online July 24 in Nature and Nature Geoscience. Those previous climate fluctuations were primarily driven by natural causes, including powerful volcanic eruptions, rather than human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.




NATURE / NEUKOM ET. AL., JULY 2019

 

The half-life of methane is 7 years. 1 molecule of methane is 20 times more potent than 1 molecule of carbon dioxide at trapping infrared radiation.

Methane news and latest updates (phys.org)
Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years). Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years.

The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. Methane can trap about 20 times the heat of CO2. In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million. The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase. In addition, there is a large, but unknown, amount of methane in methane clathrates in the ocean floors. The Earth's crust contains huge amounts of methane. Large amounts of methane are produced anaerobically by methanogenesis. Other sources include mud volcanoes, which are connected with deep geological faults, and livestock (primarily cows) from enteric fermentation.

 

That statement is false.

 

Those graphs show measurements. Measurements are the backbone of science.

 

As I said, half of it breaks down after a decade. And with methane being around 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2, it is far from a "nothingburger." It is more like a shitt sandwich. But because of people like you, we are all likely to end up taking up a big bite of that. And we will end up with FAR worse than a bad taste in our mouth.

 

I showed you the graphs. You can like them or lump them. Human caused global warming is a reality. That it is getting exponentially worse is a reality. Deal with it.

 

I posted a number of graphs showing what is going on in post #8. Everything you say is BS. The measurements the graphs show PROVES that. Also, you don't like what I had to say about methane? Try this on for size. Each year all the volcanoes release around 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year the activities of humans are responsible for the release of around 32.3 BILLION tons of CO2. I wonder how you will downplay that. None will surprise me. I've seen'em all.

 

I love that the denialist crowd is now up to four members lols!!!

Not one of whom are willing to tackle the reports being used by governments across the world to set policy

 

Oh! Dear Pot meet kettle
This from the member who frequently cites authors such as Christopher “I can make it up wholesale” Monckton

 

And can be presented in ways to make or undermine propaganda points.

 

Can you do us a favour please mate - drop the link in under the graph - saves time when I am checking the source because reverse google image does not always work

 

A nothingburger.