Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated

[Mousehound]

You guys are in the process of ruining a perfectly good thread...again. Stick to the science and stop the personal attacks!

[Ought Six]

Fd:

"This is utterly fascinating. You have completely invented the idea that ANYTHING in this discussion is "insignificant". The scientist was completely clear that the 15 year period is ALMOST, but NOT quite, presenting 95% statistical CERTAINTY of GW. You attempt to present that as evidence of "insignificence". Your inventing of the idea that the period's warming is "insignificant" is simply made up fantasy."

Dave, you are just plain wrong. I think you are mixing up two entirely different statements in your head. Below is the infamous BBC article about what Professor Phil Jones actually said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

As you can see, there is nothing whatsoever about "a 95% certainly of AGW being statistically proven". I do not even know where you got that statement. The man said he was 95% of the way to reaching the bare threshold of statistical significance for warming in the last decade, which means that he did not reach that threshold and the data was still 'in the noise'. Thus, no valid indication of warming. In no way, shape or form did he say AGW was "95% statistically proven". Please provide some link or reference to the statement you are talking about, because what Prof. Jones said is obviously not it.

[Kassy]

But your inference is that Phil Jones statement proves the end of GW or that it has stopped while the guy himself explains that you can't expect that significance over those time scales.

And you thought he tested against models too.

Dave is commenting on your use of Jones comments.

We had a la Nina year & a sun without much sunspot activity in 2009 and it's still almost the warmest year ever.

That's significant.

And we have an increase in methane from Siberia & continental shelves (both a predicted feedback & a forcing for future climate).

These things add up.

People can whine on endlessly about the temperature records & how they distrust them but they chime well with the events that happen on the planet.

Good trick.

[wetDirt]

http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/arct...ssage/overview

Trip Reviews "Amazing to be able to experience the Arctic, learn about the ecology and all aspects of the Far North." D. C. 2009 "Wonderful experience with a first rate staff."R. M. 2009 Northwest Passage: West to East Departure: July 18, 2010 Rate Range: $16,490 to $28,290 Sail the most legendary route in Arctic lore, the Northwest Passage from Anadyr, Russia to Resolute, Canada. This will be the final west to east transit of the Northwest Passage made by our icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov. The ship retires as an expedition vessel in March 2012. The End of an Era has begun. Special Guest Andrew Lambert, Laughton Professor of Naval History and bestselling author has reinterpreted the reputation and legacy of Sir John Franklin. Andrew was inspired to write The Gates of Hell: Sir John Franklin's Tragic Quest for the Northwest Passage while sailing in the Canadian Arctic aboard Kapitan Khlebnikov. Andrew returns to the Arctic and the icebreaker to present two talks about his interpretation of Franklin." View Route Map > Expedition Summary Day 1 Anchorage, Alaska Day 2/3 Embarkation Day Day 4-6 Russia's Chukotka Peninsula Day 7-9 Beaufort Sea Day 10-11 Canadian Arctic Day 12-14 Amundsen Gulf Day 15-17 Victoria Strait to Lancaster Sound Day 18 Resolute, Nunavut, Canada Day 19 Ottawa, Canada Image Gallery Expedition Dates Start Date End Date Ship Days Price Range Jul 18, 10 Aug 05, 10 Kapitan Khlebnikov 19 $16,490 - $28,290

[Auburn Boy]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ns-of-methane/

IPCC lies aside, note how long both methane and CO2 have been increasing, yet there is still no statistically significant warming in the last decade. Those powerful 'greenhouse gases' apparently just do not warm the Earth. Funny, that.

IPCC trend broken or not, that graph STILL shows the trend is warmer..,

[Potemkin]

Originally Posted by Auburn Boy

IPCC trend broken or not, that graph STILL shows the trend is warmer..,

Yea, but it is anthropogenic?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

Yea, but it is anthropogenic?

Yup. The devil is in the details

Shari

[Saul Mine]

Well I'm glad it's in Russian territory. If it were over here, congress would find some way to tax it.

[Ought Six]

K:

"But your inference is that Phil Jones statement proves the end of GW...."

Please do not make up stuff, then attribute it to me. If you do not get my point, just ask.

With Prof. PJ's admission of no statistical warming in the last decade, while CO2 was still ramping up; combined with the admission of the truth about the Medieval warming period when there was no antrho-produced CO2 present in any significant quantity; those two things taken together lead to an inescapable conclusion. You know how the scientific method works, I trust. So you know that when you have two large datasets that refuse to conform to the theory, the theory is considered disproven until the anomalies can be explained in a satisfactory manner. This puts a stake through the heart of the idea of anthro-caused warming due to 'greenhouse gasses'. That does not say that there is no climate change, as a changing climate is the norm. A changing rate of change is also the norm. But there is no longer a valid correlation to be made from the old faked model between human activity and 'runaway warming'. That idea is dead, and quite a lot of *honest* and *valid* research using unmanipulated data is going to be required to come up with a new working model.
----------

"Dave is commenting on your use of Jones comments."

Dave is mistaken.
----------

"We had a la Nina year & a sun without much sunspot activity in 2009 and it's still almost the warmest year ever. That's significant."

This is why I cannot take you seriously at all. You know that the GISS data is garbage from the reasons given in the links I posted. Where, exactly, do you think the 'warmest year ever' data came from? The exact same source, giving the exact same data corrupted in the exact same manner. You even have a post on this thread saying what a great source GISS data is. Can you not see how anti-logical and utterly bizarre that is, that you use known fraudulent data sources as if they were perfectly good; as if their fraud had never occurred and never been exposed; and expect us to take them as perfectly accurate and unquestionable? It is more than a little surreal.
----------

"People can whine on endlessly about the temperature records & how they distrust them but they chime well with the events that happen on the planet. Good trick."

So corrupt data shows warming, but more corrupt data from precisely the same source validates the old corrupt data. You might want to stop and think about what you are saying.

You also talk about world events, but you are cherrypicking as other AGW advocates do. You will point to less ice in the Arctic, while refusing to acknowledge that it is getting much colder in the Antarctic. You have pointed to a warm trend in one part of the world, while ignoring the record cold spells set across the globe this winter. What we have is more extremes, hot and cold. You try to highlight only the hot and dismiss the cold, which is an intellectually dishonest argument.

There were a lot of things that just did not add up before, and once the climatology fraud was exposed, the whole AGW theory collapsed. That is reality, and you cannot talk your way around it.

================================================== =====

AB:

"IPCC trend broken or not, that graph STILL shows the trend is warmer..,"

The graph shows no warming. It shows no temperature data of any kind. What it is showing is methane concentration in the atmosphere. More methane, more CO2, yet the warming curve flattened out in the last decade. The undeniable conclusion is that temperature and the levels of 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere do not correlate with each other. The 'greenhouse gases' hypothesis is simply wrong.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by 06

Can you not see how anti-logical and utterly bizarre that is, that you use known fraudulent data sources as if they were perfectly good; as if their fraud had never occurred and never been exposed; and expect us to take them as perfectly accurate and unquestionable? It is more than a little surreal.

Originally Posted by 06

There were a lot of things that just did not add up before, and once the climatology fraud was exposed, the whole AGW theory collapsed. That is reality, and you cannot talk your way around it.

NO ONE accepts the AGW proofs as Gospel - the fact is those studies and information have been questioned and ripped apart and rebuilt and compared with other sources to reach the point of being allowed in the true scientific discussion.

There has been NO climatology fraud "exposed" in the emails you dance around with such enthusiasm. What is surreal is how you firmly accept a bunch of bloggery as "reality", yet firmly reject a world's worth of evidence of scientific confirmed, checked and constantly re-examined thru scientific method.

The South pole is "colder"?? (It snows more,as you have said, but that doesn't mean colder) "Record cold spells across the world"??? (North America is not the "world", and there are record hot spells everywhere) These falsities and the rest of your assertions are fantasy, but that is what makes up your Denialist "reality".

Fun reading on temp data used with satellite readings: http://www.scientificblogging.com/ne...or_cooling_yes

[dharma]

Originally Posted by Fiddlerdave

you firmly accept a bunch of bloggery as "reality", yet firmly reject a world's worth of evidence of scientific confirmed, checked and constantly re-examined thru scientific method

Uh huh. Like our old friend the "hockey stick" graph, for instance—tightly edited to remove the Medieval Warm Period, gloss over the Little Ice Age, and demonstrate a huge and sudden warm trend at the end which has since been shown to be illusory? How well was that confirmed? Who checked it (before it became the emblem of the warmists, reproduced over and over in documents like the IPCC reports)? How many years was it "constantly re-examined" before global warming skeptics finally drove a stake through its heart? How big a part did it play in Al Gore's propaganda, for how long, while being ignored by all your practitioners of the scientific method? Who showed the tree ring data to have been consciously and rather blatantly rigged? Was it your army of "scientists", constantly on the lookout for any flaw in the numbers, or was it an incredulous skeptic?

You constantly rant about evidence, but you almost never produce any. Where is your preponderance of data? Where is the exculpatory temperature corroboration when it has been demonstrated that NOAA, NASA, GISS, IPCC, and CRU numbers are all flawed, with smoking guns strewn everywhere? You love to talk about the oodles of hard data, yet you never seem to reply when data are clearly shown to be manipulated, cherry-picked, or simply falsified. You bluster constantly, my friend, but bluster is not persuasive.

[Ought Six]

Dave, I have started a new thread in the Politics forum that addresses everything in your post, and much more.

http://thisbluemarble.com/showthread...006#post195006

[BuilderBob]

With due regard to the new posting rules:

A top Russian weatherman has announced that the winter now drawing to a close in Siberia may turn out to be the coldest on record and the winter of 2009-10 is one of the most severe in the European part of Russia for more than 30 years.

That bit about coldest on record for Siberia makes any report about melting permafrost seem rather indefensible.

Read the full report HERE

[BuilderBob]

Just a thought; sea water at the bottom of the Arctic ocean, in fact any ocean, CANNOT be colder than +3.85C. If it gets any colder it loses density and rises to possibly form ice on the surface of the sea.

So, how do you get PERMAFROST under water?

[Sysiphus]

So, how do you get PERMAFROST under water?

The simplest way is that the current seabed was above sea level during the last ice age. There are other, more complicated possibilities, but this is the one that applies in the Arctic Ocean margin to the north of Siberia.

[BuilderBob]

Originally Posted by Sysiphus

The simplest way is that the current seabed was above sea level during the last ice age. There are other, more complicated possibilities, but this is the one that applies in the Arctic Ocean margin to the north of Siberia.

Interesting. So this is a perfectly natural event then. Why is it being blamed on human activity? Also curious that it appears to be melting just now after 20,000 years or so. Max density sea water temperature has not changed.
Average Arctic SUMMER air temperature is +3C, (LINK) colder than the sea bottom.
So what is causing the melt?