zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on May 23, 2015 17:04:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 23, 2015 17:10:07 GMT
CO2...the sequel, it's got 2 more atoms, and 4 times the strength, CH4.....coming a planet near you....NOW!!!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 23, 2015 18:02:00 GMT
CO2...the sequel, it's got 2 more atoms, and 4 times the strength, CH4.....coming a planet near you....NOW!!! CO2 on steroids ... enough to set a warmist's jowls ajiggling!
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on May 23, 2015 19:01:11 GMT
Well... 4 x (not much impact) = Not much impact!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 23, 2015 23:06:45 GMT
Well... 4 x (not much impact) = Not much impact! .... and methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere for 10,000 years ** like the evil CO2. ** it is 10,000 years, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2015 2:55:06 GMT
Well... 4 x (not much impact) = Not much impact! .... and methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere for 10,000 years ** like the evil CO2. ** it is 10,000 years, isn't it? Ya, give or take 9,995 years.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on May 24, 2015 10:38:45 GMT
I think we will get another look at the offshore East Siberian shelf sea deposits this summer as the deposits continue into Yamal where we spotted the craters last year. We already have a few suspects to watch develop over the season? As it is Shakhova's team measured 'chimneys off the shore there in 2011 that were a few meters across. On her return in 2012 they had blossomed to over 1 km across! Are these the same features, as those now appearing on Yamal, but controlled by the waters above?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 24, 2015 11:26:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2015 14:30:57 GMT
The question to ask: Has the water temperature ever been similar during the Holocene Period? WEll, how about that. It HAS.
Did we have the tech to observe the floor 100 years ago? Nope.
What is causing this warmer water? Is it CO2 radiation? No, it isn't. Is it Short Wave radiation? Why, yes it is.
Are we doomed? Nope, we aren't.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 24, 2015 15:15:52 GMT
It would appear that the 'lifetime' of CH4 in the atmosphere claimed by the EPA to scare the gullibles is based on research in the 1960's that suggested that CO and CH4 would only break down once in the Stratosphere. Thus the lifetime would be the length of time for the mixing to carry it there - ~9 years. However, later research showed this not to be the case and the lifetime is in months. "Critical to the generation of OH is the production of O(1D) atoms by (R1) . Until 1970 it was assumed that production of O(1D) would be negligible in the troposphere because of near-total absorption of UV radiation by the O3 column overhead. It was thought that oxidation of species emitted from the Earth's surface, such as CO and CH4, required transport to the stratosphere followed by reaction with OH in the stratosphere:
(R4)
(R5)
This mechanism implied long atmospheric lifetimes for CO and CH4 because air takes on average 5-10 years to travel from the troposphere to the stratosphere ( section 4.4.4 ) and the stratosphere accounts for only 15% of total atmospheric mass. In the 1960s, concern emerged that accumulation of CO emitted by fossil fuel combustion would soon represent a global air pollution problem.
11.1 THE HYDROXYL RADICAL
11.1.1 Tropospheric production of OH
A major discovery in the early 1970s was that sufficient OH is in fact produced in the troposphere by reactions (R1) - (R3) to allow for oxidation of species such as CO and CH4 within the troposphere. A calculation of the rate constant for (R1) at sea level is shown in Figure 11-1 as the product of the solar actinic flux, the absorption cross-section for O3, and the O(1D) quantum yield. Tropospheric production of O(1D) takes place in a narrow wavelength band between 300 and 320 nm; radiation of shorter wavelengths does not penetrate into the troposphere, while radiation of longer wavelengths is not absorbed by O3. Although the production of O(1D) in the troposphere is considerably slower than in the stratosphere, this is compensated in terms of OH production by the larger H2O mixing ratios in the troposphere (102-103 times higher than in the stratosphere). Model calculations in the 1970s accounting for the penetration of UV radiation at 300-320 nm found tropospheric OH concentrations of the order of 106 molecules cm-3, resulting in a tropospheric lifetime for CO of only a few months and allaying concerns that CO could accumulate to toxic levels. Crude measurements of OH concentrations in the 1970s confirmed this order of magnitude and hence the importance of OH as an oxidant in the troposphere; further confirmation came from long-lived proxies ( section 11.1.2 ). The accurate measurement of OH turned out to be an extremely difficult problem because of the low concentrations, and only in the past decade have instruments been developed that can claim an accuracy of better than 50%."acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap11.htmlBut to keep the panic going the research showing the shorter lifetime has 'surprisingly' disappeared from Wiki and other similar sites. I think it is only in this site as it is indirect linked to CO atmospheric lifetimes and buried deeper than the average green arts graduate will read.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2015 16:02:38 GMT
Also willful ignorance by Scientists who have the AGW mantra as their talking points.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on May 24, 2015 17:35:50 GMT
The question to ask: Has the water temperature ever been similar during the Holocene Period? WEll, how about that. It HAS. Did we have the tech to observe the floor 100 years ago? Nope. What is causing this warmer water? Is it CO2 radiation? No, it isn't. Is it Short Wave radiation? Why, yes it is. Are we doomed? Nope, we aren't. Of course we are doomed, Mr. Sigurdur, but not because we are burning fossil fuels. Our doom will come when the likes of Mr. Obama, Mr. Gore and our very own hysteric Mr. Graywolf prevail and dramatically limit our burning of fossil fuels for energy without replacing that energy with a process that can support modern civilization. That's when we'll see famine, pestilence and death on an unimaginable scale. The misanthropic AGW screamers are the real criminals in this saga.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 24, 2015 19:46:04 GMT
The question to ask: Has the water temperature ever been similar during the Holocene Period? WEll, how about that. It HAS. Did we have the tech to observe the floor 100 years ago? Nope. What is causing this warmer water? Is it CO2 radiation? No, it isn't. Is it Short Wave radiation? Why, yes it is. Are we doomed? Nope, we aren't. Of course we are doomed, Mr. Sigurdur, but not because we are burning fossil fuels. Our doom will come when the likes of Mr. Obama, Mr. Gore and our very own hysteric Mr. Graywolf prevail and dramatically limit our burning of fossil fuels for energy without replacing that energy with a process that can support modern civilization. That's when we'll see famine, pestilence and death on an unimaginable scale. The misanthropic AGW screamers are the real criminals in this saga. Indeed. Add in the sudden drop in temperatures with an increase in demand for energy for heating, at the same time as continual rains make solar cells far less effective. Climate 'scientists' and their funding politicians bought into the 'carbon' markets, may suddenly find they are very unpopular.
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on May 24, 2015 21:53:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 25, 2015 13:00:11 GMT
I'm glad that there is an Arctic Methane Emergency Group. I feel so much safer.
|
|