• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Proof that it's Getting Warmer---Fast (1 Viewer)

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,846
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
And yet another sign emerges indicating that things are heating up faster than expected. Carbon Dioxide and Methane gases long ago trapped under the Arctic ice caps are beginning to rise up into the atmosphere like weather balloons from hell.

Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic? | NASA

The CARVE science team is busy analyzing data from its first full year of science flights. What they're finding, Miller said, is both amazing and potentially troubling.

"Some of the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations we've measured have been large, and we're seeing very different patterns from what models suggest," Miller said. "We saw large, regional-scale episodic bursts of higher-than-normal carbon dioxide and methane in interior Alaska and across the North Slope during the spring thaw, and they lasted until after the fall refreeze. To cite another example, in July 2012 we saw methane levels over swamps in the Innoko Wilderness that were 650 parts per billion higher than normal background levels. That's similar to what you might find in a large city."
Click to expand...
 
Methane is indeed the very possible sleeping giant/tipping point/additional possible snowball effect.
It is a 20x more potent Greenhouse gas than CO2... and slight warming frees up large quantities.
As Tundra melts, Methane is freed.
 
Last edited:
If this were happening as we speak, there's not a single thing we could do but have one last big ass party.
 
mbig said:
Methane is indeed the very possible sleeping giant/tipping point/additional possible snowball effect.
It is a 20x more potent Greenhouse gas than CO2... and slight warming frees up large quantities more.
As Tundra melts, Methane is freed.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The pressure and coldness of the ocean depths is the only thing keeping it trapped.

Love that tag line BTW!
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Give me a break....More propaganda.....
Click to expand...

Are you saying climate change is not happening or that if it is, it won't have any negative consequences?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Give me a break....More propaganda.....
Click to expand...
It's all propaganda for you wingers except when it's time to talk about fetuses that are 3 weeks beyond conception. Then it's suddenly "killing babies" and "protecting the rights of a child", and mountains needing to be moved to stop the "slaughter".
 
calamity said:
It's all propaganda for you wingers except when it's time to talk about fetuses that are 3 weeks beyond conception. Then it's suddenly "killing babies" and "protecting the rights of a child", and mountains needing to be moved to stop the "slaughter".
Click to expand...

That's not propaganda, that is the truth. Nice try though, too bad it isn't the same.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
That's not propaganda, that is the truth. Nice try though, too bad it isn't the same.
Click to expand...

Right, global warming is more serious, threatens more actual lives.
 
We know global warming isn't real because God promised that he wouldn't flood the world ever again.

I know this is true because a guy on the House Science committee said its so.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I asked for proof, those sites are all pretty biased by the way.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling every site that isn't a right wing denial site you would consider biased, correct? I'm also guessing you think every single government agency is biased and cannot be trusted as well?

So lets just stop pretending you want to have some kind of actual discussion about all this.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Give me a break....More propaganda.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, what makes NASA think they're so damn smart? its not like they're exactly rocket scientists or anything.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Give me a break....More propaganda.....
Click to expand...

Maybe the warmers should learn solubility sciences better. It's only natural for both CO2 and CH4 to increase in atmospheric levels as the oceans warm. By this I mean the ratio between the two changes.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Maybe the warmers should learn solubility sciences better. It's only natural for both CO2 and CH4 to increase in atmospheric levels as the oceans warm. By this I mean the ratio between the two changes.
Click to expand...

Oh. The scientists who literally have devoted their entire careers to studying the carbon solubility in oceans must have missed this basic chemistry.

I suggest you run to your nearest university climatology department and let them know right away!
 
mbig said:
Methane is indeed the very possible sleeping giant/tipping point/additional possible snowball effect.
It is a 20x more potent Greenhouse gas than CO2... and slight warming frees up large quantities.
As Tundra melts, Methane is freed.
Click to expand...
How can you make such statements?

CH4 is not a stronger greenhouse has than CO2 is. This is one way the Alarmists lie to you warmers. You should verify the things you say first, because what you stated is false.

Greenhouse gasses follow a nonlinear curve for concentration vs. forcing. They have what is called a "sensitivity" which is generally said to be degrees per doubling. The fact that they use "doubling" is a clear indication it is not a linear function. Now what you have just said as for methane being 20x more potent has to do with where the concentration vs. forcing is at, and what the slope of that point is. Please note the first two graphs at the bottom. They are based on the IPCC WG1 AR4 and cover the 1750 to 2004 timeframe. The slope of change for the two data points for CH4 is 0.48, and is 0.0168 for CO2. There is a factor of 28.6 more for CH4 than CO2. Again, this relies on the slope of change. The actual change was just over 0.5 W.m^2 for CH4, but 1.6 W/m^2 for CO2. Note the "Y" scales for each.

Now when you plot them both on the same scale, note the third graph. Note that CO2 forcing is about 5 times that of CH4, at the same concentrations.

All these graphs are created using the IPCC numbers!








 
I can imagine this is another of Planar's lets make **** up posts. If you research it and figure out everything he is saying you'll find some massive wrong crap in his "methodology". Up is down, gas is liquid, something of that nature.
 
Verax said:
I can imagine this is another of Planar's lets make **** up posts. If you research it and figure out everything he is saying you'll find some massive wrong crap in his "methodology". Up is down, gas is liquid, something of that nature.
Click to expand...

Then good sir, I challenge you to show me wrong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then good sir, I challenge you to show me wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm going to the gym. I've had enough playing climate scientist for the day. Somebody else take a look at this. What he said directly contradicts everything I've read about it, I'm sure its pretty easy to figure out.
 
What you should do to prove my graphs wrong is find a valid formula for plotting them. May I suggest those out of the IPCC TAR WG1 chapter 6 table 6.2, then find the stated forcing changes and concentration. Next, plot them making sure the values fit, changing the "a" constants as necessary for fit.



 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom