Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another IPCC modeling failure – so THAT’s where the atmospheric methane went
Anthony Watts / 1 hour ago October 15, 2014
IPCC_AR5_draft_fig1-7_methane
IPCC models for each assessment report vs. reality.

From Oregon State University – Scientists discover carbonate rocks are unrecognized methane sink

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Since the first undersea methane seep was discovered 30 years ago, scientists have meticulously analyzed and measured how microbes in the seafloor sediments consume the greenhouse gas methane as part of understanding how the Earth works.

The sediment-based microbes form an important methane “sink,” preventing much of the chemical from reaching the atmosphere and contributing to greenhouse gas accumulation. As a byproduct of this process, the microbes create a type of rock known as authigenic carbonate, which while interesting to scientists was not thought to be involved in the processing of methane.

That is no longer the case. A team of scientists has discovered that these authigenic carbonate rocks also contain vast amounts of active microbes that take up methane. The results of their study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, were reported today in the journal Nature Communications.

“No one had really examined these rocks as living habitats before,” noted Andrew Thurber, an Oregon State University marine ecologist and co-author on the paper. “It was just assumed that they were inactive. In previous studies, we had seen remnants of microbes in the rocks – DNA and lipids – but we thought they were relics of past activity. We didn’t know they were active.

“This goes to show how the global methane process is still rather poorly understood,” Thurber added.

Lead author Jeffrey Marlow of the California Institute of Technology and his colleagues studied samples from authigenic compounds off the coasts of the Pacific Northwest (Hydrate Ridge), northern California (Eel River Basin) and central America (the Costa Rica margin). The rocks range in size and distribution from small pebbles to carbonate “pavement” stretching dozens of square miles.

“Methane-derived carbonates represent a large volume within many seep systems and finding active methane-consuming archaea and bacteria in the interior of these carbonate rocks extends the known habitat for methane-consuming microorganisms beyond the relatively thin layer of sediment that may overlay a carbonate mound,” said Marlow, a geobiology graduate student in the lab of Victoria Orphan of Caltech.

These assemblages are also found in the Gulf of Mexico as well as off Chile, New Zealand, Africa, Europe – “and pretty much every ocean basin in the world,” noted Thurber, an assistant professor (senior research) in Oregon State’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences.

The study is important, scientists say, because the rock-based microbes potentially may consume a huge amount of methane. The microbes were less active than those found in the sediment, but were more abundant – and the areas they inhabit are extensive, making their importance potential enormous. Studies have found that approximately 3-6 percent of the methane in the atmosphere is from marine sources – and this number is so low due to microbes in the ocean sediments consuming some 60-90 percent of the methane that would otherwise escape.

Now those ratios will have to be re-examined to determine how much of the methane sink can be attributed to microbes in rocks versus those in sediments. The distinction is important, the researchers say, because it is an unrecognized sink for a potentially very important greenhouse gas.

“We found that these carbonate rocks located in areas of active methane seeps are themselves more active,” Thurber said. “Rocks located in comparatively inactive regions had little microbial activity. However, they can quickly activate when methane becomes available.

“In some ways, these rocks are like armies waiting in the wings to be called upon when needed to absorb methane.”

The ocean contains vast amounts of methane, which has long been a concern to scientists. Marine reservoirs of methane are estimated to total more than 455 gigatons and may be as much as 10,000 gigatons carbon in methane. A gigaton is approximate 1.1 billion tons.

By contrast, all of the planet’s gas and oil deposits are thought to total about 200-300 gigatons of carbon

October 15, 2014 in IPCC, Methane.
 
Another IPCC modeling failure – so THAT’s where the atmospheric methane went
Anthony Watts / 1 hour ago October 15, 2014
IPCC_AR5_draft_fig1-7_methane
IPCC models for each assessment report vs. reality

Another fail from Anthony Watts (AW)... perhaps you could ask him what the deference between methane in the water and methane in the air. You might ask how the Arctic tundra is doing with it's vast amounts of methane that is melting at increased rates every summer.... Wonder why AW dries electric car and has solar panels on his house? You would think that a guy like that would have a hummer and burn oil in his furnace....


957px-Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png
 
More of the same on this topic of fusion...
[JAsRFVbcyUY] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY
 

Your logic escapes me again.....
a study from 1989? as that proves we can't predict the future???
Perhaps that guy was wrong......
To use that as evidence that we can't predict the future is stunningly weak.....

If we can't predict the future how is it that we can send a space craft to some distant planet, land on it and report back it's findings? We use math and physics that's how. Same thing we are using to predict that if we keep dumping CO2 in the air it will heat the planet. This is simple stuff here... the real debate should be what are we going to do about it. Not if it is true or not or how bad it is going to get. Try some critical thinking.... Does it matter if the date of real bad is 2050 or 2100? the whole point is we know it's bad and we need to do something about it. The faster we work on this problem the less the costs are going to be to solve the problem. Simple stuff here OBD....

Are you suggesting that we wait until 2050 to see if climate change is a disaster first before we do something?
Every heard of risk? Why is it we get fire insurance on our house when the odds are that it will never burn.
I read somewhere that the odds are .05% and yet we see that as too much risk because the loss is to great.
You seem to what to risk the planet with odds that science tells us are around 95% chance it's going to be bad.
You might be fine with that but most people are not. Your advice is grounded on some blog from the denier camp.
Do you hope to convince people to follow you? What's your plan "b" if your wrong?
Let us know when you take that fire insurance off your house as your conviction to acceptable risk.
My bet is you would not dare because when you have skin in the game you will use critical thinking.
 
He is not the author.
You might actually read some of these.


Another fail from Anthony Watts (AW)... perhaps you could ask him what the deference between methane in the water and methane in the air. You might ask how the Arctic tundra is doing with it's vast amounts of methane that is melting at increased rates every summer.... Wonder why AW dries electric car and has solar panels on his house? You would think that a guy like that would have a hummer and burn oil in his furnace....


957px-Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png
 
My information is just as good as what you are trying to sell.
You state man can predect the future, yet he cannot.
You do not think any other opinion counts. Seems you might be wrong.
Computers do not have all the answers. They only have the information man puts in them.
If he puts the wrong information in them then the answer is wrong.
You are taking your information from blogs and sites that you like? You tell me mine are not any good because they do not meet your criteria,yet i note you use newspaper articles that are opinions only and no scientist is the author?
Man cannot even predict what is going on in the ocean.
So, if you want to believe that he knows what is going on in the whole world then you go hard.
Me, not so much.




Your logic escapes me again.....
a study from 1989? as that proves we can't predict the future???
Perhaps that guy was wrong......
To use that as evidence that we can't predict the future is stunningly weak.....

If we can't predict the future how is it that we can send a space craft to some distant planet, land on it and report back it's findings? We use math and physics that's how. Same thing we are using to predict that if we keep dumping CO2 in the air it will heat the planet. This is simple stuff here... the real debate should be what are we going to do about it. Not if it is true or not or how bad it is going to get. Try some critical thinking.... Does it matter if the date of real bad is 2050 or 2100? the whole point is we know it's bad and we need to do something about it. The faster we work on this problem the less the costs are going to be to solve the problem. Simple stuff here OBD....

Are you suggesting that we wait until 2050 to see if climate change is a disaster first before we do something?
Every heard of risk? Why is it we get fire insurance on our house when the odds are that it will never burn.
I read somewhere that the odds are .05% and yet we see that as too much risk because the loss is to great.
You seem to what to risk the planet with odds that science tells us are around 95% chance it's going to be bad.
You might be fine with that but most people are not. Your advice is grounded on some blog from the denier camp.
Do you hope to convince people to follow you? What's your plan "b" if your wrong?
Let us know when you take that fire insurance off your house as your conviction to acceptable risk.
My bet is you would not dare because when you have skin in the game you will use critical thinking.
 
He is not the author.
You might actually read some of these.
I know he is not the author... just the messenger...
Do you understand what it's about?
Is there anything in that about the arctic.... No... that's where the real problem is.
To say there is no problem with methane in the ocean misses the facts of the arctic ocean and the tundra.
That's why I say watts did another fail.....
To bad he can't see that or maybe he just posted it for your side as entertainment.
 
My information is just as good as what you are trying to sell.
You state man can predect the future, yet he cannot.
You do not think any other opinion counts. Seems you might be wrong.
Computers do not have all the answers. They only have the information man puts in them.
If he puts the wrong information in them then the answer is wrong.
You are taking your information from blogs and sites that you like? You tell me mine are not any good because they do not meet your criteria,yet i note you use newspaper articles that are opinions only and no scientist is the author?
Man cannot even predict what is going on in the ocean.
So, if you want to believe that he knows what is going on in the whole world then you go hard.
Me, not so much.

Yup we can predict the future using math and physics as NASA proves every time they send a rocket into space.
They don't guess ... they know where that space craft will be in time and space. (the future)
Opinions aren't worth anything unless they have science to back it up.....
Clearly your side is lacking in that department as there is a complete lack of science papers to prove it.
The ones that your side does produce seem to get withdrawn or debunked rather quickly.....
Your side has resorted to starting journals to publish because the can't cut the mustard in mainstream.
You seem to have a thing for computers but we don't need computers to see climate change.
We see it with videos of the Arctic ice melt and glacier melt before our eyes.
Why is it you use FOS and Watts and not science websites like NOAA, NASA, Environment Canada, IPCC, and such. You got nothing.... Yup I will put a news stories but I quote website from official data sources. Not some denier blog with questionable data. I give out links to check my source and that's more then most do. The video's I post are form science not some conspiracy theory person. I post lot's on this subject and not everything is about the nut's and bolt's of climate change. Some gives the background and some point to the people behind the story.


What's your plan "b" if you are wrong?
What's the down side if you are wrong?

Me... if I'm wrong we have a clean energy that takes us to the future after fossil fuel.
The down side..... We have a clean planet that is good for nature...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is one for you OBD from NASA.
Your challenge is to find something that debunks NASA.
You up for it?
[jjwpOWeRZus] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjwpOWeRZus
 
More Arctic sea ice from NASA
Yup... we know where this is heading.... future....
[cubJXXma-Z4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cubJXXma-Z4
 
Here is a video from 2009 from NASA about Arctic sea ice.....
Seems their prediction of the future is spot on...
Who say's we can't predict the future....
[_m-M37vc-m0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-M37vc-m0
 
More from NASA with history of Arctic sea ice research.
Part 1
[szRwBO5BtCo] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szRwBO5BtCo
 
Part 2

[K4TpLbFyhlE] http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3616130323&feature=iv&src_vid=szRwBO5BtCo&v=K4TpLbFyhlE
 
Here is one from 2007.... who say's we can't predict the future....
After viewing this one it's uncanny how things are getting worse.....
That bit that say's no summer ice in the arctic by the end of the century.....
That's not going to happen..... looks more like 2050 but I have a bet with OBD for 2030 if we both live that long....

[ZQTVF29Skmw] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTVF29Skmw&list=UUAY-SMFNfynqz1bdoaV8BeQ
 
So... let's see what NASA Science say's about the future....

[h=3]How will the Earth system change in the future?[/h] As the world consumes ever more fossil fuel energy, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise and Earth's average temperature will rise with them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) estimates that Earth's average surface temperature could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century.
For most places, global warming will result in more hot days and fewer cool days, with the greatest warming happening over land. Longer, more intense heat waves will happen more often. High latitudes and generally wet places will tend to receive more rainfall, while tropical regions and generally dry places will probably receive less rain. Increases in rainfall will come in the form of bigger, wetter storms, rather than in the form of more rainy days. In between those larger storms will be longer periods of light or no rain, so the frequency and severity of drought will increase. Hurricanes will likely increase in intensity due to warmer ocean surface temperatures. So one of the most obvious impacts of global warming will be changes in both average and extreme temperature and precipitation events.
Scientists are also monitoring the great ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica, both of which are experiencing increasing melting trends as surface temperatures are rising faster in those parts of the world than anywhere else. Each of those ice sheets contains enough water to raise sea level by 5 meters and if our world continues to warm at the rate it is today then it is a question of when, not if, those ice sheets will collapse. Some scientists warn we could lose either, or both, of them as soon as the year 2100.
Ecosystems will shift as those plants and animals that adapt the quickest will move into new areas to compete with the currently established species. Those species that cannot adapt quickly enough will face extinction. Scientists note with increasing concern the 21st century could see one of the greatest periods of mass extinction of species in Earth's entire history. Ultimately, global warming will impact life on Earth in many ways. But the extent of the change is up to us.
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-scien...e-predict-future-changes-in-the-earth-system/
 
My information is just as good as what you are trying to sell.
You state man can predect the future, yet he cannot.
You do not think any other opinion counts. Seems you might be wrong.
Computers do not have all the answers. They only have the information man puts in them.
If he puts the wrong information in them then the answer is wrong.
You are taking your information from blogs and sites that you like? You tell me mine are not any good because they do not meet your criteria,yet i note you use newspaper articles that are opinions only and no scientist is the author?
Man cannot even predict what is going on in the ocean.
So, if you want to believe that he knows what is going on in the whole world then you go hard.
Me, not so much.

I can predict the future. I predict you will continue to ignore the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists (those who devote their lives to actually studying climate in detail) believe that man made CO2 is driving global warming. I also predict this thread will go on for many more posts with no one on either side of the issue actually influencing the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top