Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

I am not sure what you mean; from my readings, it merely requires those needful buildings which can make that happen. It is a capital intensive endeavor which should require the use of an official Mint with which to make more money by simply and loyally, promoting the general welfare.

 

hi there. you seem to be new here, so i will give my current propaganda and rhetoric concerning such "negativity".

Only the right prefers to soothsay doomsdays for free or on contingency, the left prefers to burden the wealthiest with doomsday tax rates to help establish confidence in our sincerity.

 

I read it, I fail to understand what you want me to see.

Please elaborate.

 

I return to this again:



The only reason why the RE (radiative efficiency) is larger for CO2 than for CH4 is because of it's placement on the log curve. In this example generated by the numbers used by the IPCC in the fourth assessment report, CH4 is given a 0.48 W/m^2 forcing increase from 1750 to 2005 for more than a doubling of CH4. This puts the sensitivity of CH4 at 0.412 W/m^2. CO2 for the 1750 to 2005 period increased by 1.66 W/m^2 for a 36.3% increase from 278 ppm to 379 ppm. This yields a sensitivity for CO2 at 3.68 W/m^2

When taking the value changes for adding 1 ppb of gas to each, from the 2005 levels, the CO2 slope is 0.0141 and the CH4 slope is 0.3664. The CH4 slope is 26 times greater than the CO2 slope. Now when you turn around and use the GWP metric instead of the RE, you now consider mass changes instead of volume changes, and persistence time. If we use the simple 44/12 and increase the volume of CH4 by 2.75 times more than CO2 to get equal mass, then it shows CH4 as 71.5 times greater. The persistence of each is similar, hence the 72 times number.

However, on the log curve, CH4 holds more heat in equal volume quantity, and still more in equal mass quantity.

Think about this. The AR4 has 2005 levels of CO2 at 379000 ppb, and CH4 at 1774 ppb. Therefore a 1 ppb increase to each is a 0.000263% to CO2 and 0.0564% to CH4. Percentages matter on log curves. We are increasing CH4 by 214 more by percentage times that of CO2 to get the RE, and by 588 times to get the 72 for the GWP.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this.

I'm sorry you don't understand.

Radiative forcing of these gasses is not the same as heat capacity, of which CH4 is almost double that of CO2. If this is what you mean, then that doesn't apply when speaking of global warming. If anything, the atmosphere cools somewhat comparatively because CH4 absorbs more heat at the same temperature than CO2.

Remember, initially, I asked what metric you were using?

 

Since I've never made that argument, the only idiot here is yourself.

 

Here is something to explain it to you.

METHANE: TAPPING THE UNTAPPED POTENTIAL
Over the past few years, the reality of global warming has become unequivocal. Steady
reports of rising Arctic temperatures, disappearing glaciers, rising sea levels, and
dislocated wildlife have silenced most climate change skeptics and lent a new level of
urgency to the search for solutions. Much of the world’s attention has focused on cutting
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas with the most profound and lasting
effect on the planet’s heat exchange system. Yet the science is clear: even under the most
optimistic reduction scenarios, CO2 concentrations already in the atmosphere will
continue to warm the earth for decades, pushing the climate toward potentially irreversible
changes. Containing this warming trend over the next century to levels in the range of past
human experience will likely require additional non-CO2 mitigation strategies.
Methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas with a much shorter lifespan than CO2,
offers a clear, though under-utilized, opportunity to achieve near-term climate gains.
While less abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, ton-for-ton, methane traps 25 times
more heat than CO2 over a 100-year period. Measured over 20 years, methane’s warming
impact is 72 times greater than an equivalent weight of CO2.1 Because methane survives in
the atmosphere for only 8-12 years (compared to more than a century for CO2), substantial
emissions cuts today will diminish concentration levels within one to two decades—a
critical time frame for slowing warming especially in the earth’s most vulnerable regions,
such as the poles.
More than half of the earth’s methane output comes from human-related sources—
primarily in the areas of agriculture (livestock and rice cultivation), waste management
(landfills, sewage treatment, and manure), and energy (coal and oil/gas production)—and
many of these allow for cost-effective reduction. Emissions collected from municipal
landfills, manure storage sites or coal mines can be harnessed to generate local electricity
or upgraded to produce pipeline quality natural gas. When substituted for more carbonintensive
fossil fuels, methane-based energy contributes to further greenhouse gas.

LINK....http://www.catf.us/resources/whitepapers/files/Methane-Tapping_the_Untapped_Potential.pdf

Understand now?

AboveAlpha

 

Climate change happens; why are we wasting our tax monies playing shell games with statism instead of finding better solutions at potentially lower cost?

 

Yes, I know that and if we assume the forcing to be correct for both CO2 and CH4, it is exactly the same material I am speaking of. You don't get the fact that I am using their numbers and assessments and pointing out the fact that they send a message that is a lie. The problem is, the IPCC is being deceptive in their application of the factual numbers. CO2 simply does not trap more heat in equal levels, and a ton, or other asmall values only have a greater warming impact because of by the percentage of increase from existing gas levels. If you increase them by an equal percentage, CH4 will never show a greater value than CO2.

This is what I am trying to explain, and you are too hard headed to understand.

This statement is true form only small changes. They are effectively doing these change calculations at that small of a level. If I were to increase each by 800 Gigatons, it would be far from true, because of the log relationship. This factor that CH4 is greater for small equal changes does not extend in a linear fashion. It appears to me, you never went past basic math.

Do you understand what a log curve is?

 

maybe we should generate some interest in options on "global shading".

 

The debate will never be finished. Facts dont matter otherwise the total failure of their "models" and predictions would have buried the warmists already. The only thing that matters to progs is the end result, not the means to the end, and "global warming" is just another means to an end. The socialists and their crony's will milk this global warming sham for as long as they can, then shift to a new scam.

 

climate change happens regardless of any shell games with statism.

 

"Statism" and "prog" are such useful words. Once you see them, you instantly know to not ever take the speaker seriously on any topic, since cult dogma is all you'll get.

Coleman was a weather comedian. Jerry Seinfeld would be equally qualified to give opinions on global warming.

 

But what do we do about the political IPCC comedians?

 

playing shell games with statism is all most politicians know how to do.

 

Your lack of knowledge about the massive amounts of Gel Form CH4 existing and bubbling u from the bottoms of all Earths Oceans as well as bubbling up from Arctic Lakes and Arctic Circle Permafrost shows me you are CLUELESS to why CH4 is becomes a HUGE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE!!

There is BEYOND CALCULATION AMOUNTS of this Gel Form CH4 that due to the CO2 caused rise in Global Temps is now bubbling up as CH4 Gas.

By the way....if I were YOU I would NOT make this personal.

Argue and debate all you want but I am fully capable of making you look the fool.

Don't make me sink to your level.

AboveAlpha

 

Climate change cannot be a lie if we are not in an Ice Age.

 

We have been in an ice age for 2.5 million years. We are just in a mild interglacial at the moment.

 

An interglacial is warmer than a glacial period.

 

An interglacial just means we are between periods with larger glaciers during this 2.5 million year ice age. Before that it was nice and warm and seas were 30 feet higher.

 

Yea, you caught me (before i had a chance to read up on it and change it.)

 

In any case, climate change happens. It cannot be a lie and we should stop playing shell games with statism.

 

I understand these concerns. That does not change the accepted warming of CH4. CH4 has more than doubled in ppmv according to the IPCC AR4 for the period of 1750 to 2005, and only increased flux by 0.48 W/m^2. CO2 during the same time frame increased by less than 40% ppmv and forcing was increased by 1.66 W/m^2. This clearly puts the warming of CO2 as holding more heat than CH4.

It is you who lacks knowledge, and is not attempting to change the goalpost. Sorry, no win for you.

So?

Phew...

I smell and alarmist!

Then maybe you should stop. I am only factually pointing out that you don't understand that CO2 is actually a stronger greenhouse gas the CH4.

I seriously doubt it, but you are doing a great job making yourself look like one, not understanding the actual truth about RE and GWP.

RE is just the instantaneous sloped, using a gasses current level and a one ppb addition.

GWP is like RE, but uses equal small mass changes instead of volume.

Both are on a log curve, the the gas with the smaller starting value has a steeper slope.

The slope reduces as the gas increases in value. It does not trend out in a linear form.

CH4, measured by equal mass or by equal volume does not have a greater forcing, or a greater warming potential than CO2.

Please slow down, stop believing I am wrong without actually doing all the math yourself, first. Just take that "what if" I am correct. Try to understand what I am trying yo convey to you, please.

You are the only one looking like a fool here.

Since when are the facts, sinking?

 

Let me explain this in the simplest manner I can think of.

Because we currently have the highest amount of CO2 in PPM in our Atmosphere...Global Temps are rising at an unprecidented rate in 100,000 years.

At the current rate of CO2 increse and Temp Increase it will result in massive amounts of Gel Form CH4 bubbling up from the Ocean Bottoms, arctic lake bottoms and out of permafrost.

This amount of CH4 will be greater than the total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere within this century.

As it stands it seems we have reached and passed a tipping point and an ICE AGE is inevitable due to a massive decrease of ocean current salinity.

AboveAlpha

 

can you prove your opinion?

No.

We probably have around 2,900 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and around 4.7 gigatons of methane. This is based on 400 ppm vs. 1.8 ppm. [-someone please double check my math please-] Now in volume, you are asking us to believe an increase of more than 398 ppm, or in mass, by more than 2,895 gigatons.

No it won't. We have had massive releases in the past, with no proxy records to support your contention.

CO2 is currently at over 200 times that of CH4 in volume, and around 600 times more in mass.

Do you understand the magnitude of what you are saying?

Believe as you wish.

All I see is you avoiding the facts I have presented showing the CH4 is not a stronger greenhouse gas.

What will your next tactic be?

 

really great post
thanks for sharing