Methane is leaking from permafrost offshore Siberia

December 22, 2014 by Maja Sojtaric
Kara Sea is a section of the Arctic Ocean between Novaya Zemlya and the Yamal Peninsula on the Siberian mainland. Siberian permafrost extends to the seabed of the Kara Sea, and it is thawing. Credit: NASA

Yamal Peninsula in Siberia has recently become world famous. Spectacular sinkholes, appeared as out of nowhere in the permafrost of the area, sparking the speculations of significant release of greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.

What is less known, is that there is a lot of greenhouse methane released from the seabed offshore the West Yamal Peninsula. Gas is released in an area of at least 7500 m2, with gas flares extending up to 25 meters in the water column. Anyhow, there is still a large amount of methane gas that is contained by an impermeable cap of permafrost. And this permafrost is thawing.

"The thawing of permafrost on the is an ongoing process, likely to be exaggerated by the global warming of the world´s oceans." says PhD Alexey Portnov at Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment (CAGE) at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway.

Portnov and his colleagues have recently published two papers about permafrost offshore West Yamal, in the Kara Sea. Papers look into the extent of permafrost on the ocean floor and how it is connected to the significant release of the greenhouse gas methane.

Permanently frozen soil

Permafrost, as the word implies, is the soil permanently frozen for two or more years. For something to stay permanently frozen, the temperature must of course stay bellow 0°C.

"Terrestrial Arctic is always frozen, average ground temperatures are low in Siberia which maintains permafrost down to 600-800 meters ground depth. But the ocean is another matter. Bottom water temperature is usually close to or above zero. Theoretically, therefore, we could never have thick permafrost under the sea," says Portnov "However, 20 000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum, the sea level dropped to minus 120 meters. It means that today´s shallow shelf area was land. It was Siberia. And Siberia was frozen. The permafrost on the ocean floor today was established in that period.

Last glacial maximum was the period in the history of the planet when ice sheets covered significant part of the Northern hemisphere. These ice sheets profoundly impacted Earth's climate, causing drought, desertification, and a dramatic drop in sea levels. Most likely the Yamal Peninsula was not covered with ice, but it was exposed to extremely cold conditions.

Water molecules trap methane gas in an icy cage under high pressure and cold temperatures. If thawed, one cubic metre of the compound can release about 164 cubic metres of gas. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

When the ice age ended some 12 000 years ago, and the climate warmed up, the ocean levels increased. Permafrost was submerged under the ocean water, and started it´s slow thawing. One of the reasons it has not thawed completely so far, is that bottom water temperatures are low, some - 0,5 degrees . That could very well change.

A fragile seal that is leaking

It was previously proposed that the permafrost in the Kara Sea, and other Arctic areas, extends to water depths up to 100 meters, creating a seal that gas cannot bypass. Portnov and collegues have found that the West Yamal shelf is leaking, profoundly, at depths much shallower than that.

Significant amount of gas is leaking at depths between 20 and 50 meters. This suggests that a continuous permafrost seal is much smaller than proposed. Close to the shore the permafrost seal may be few hundred meters thick, but tapers off towards 20 meters water depth. And it is fragile.

"The permafrost is thawing from two sides. The interior of the Earth is warm and is warming the permafrost from the bottom up. It is called geothermal heat flux and it is happening all the time, regardless of human influence. " says Portnov.

Evolution of permafrost

Yamal crater in winter

Portnov used mathematical models to map the evolution of the permafrost, and thus calculate its degradation since the end of the last ice age. The evolution of permafrost gives indication to what may happen to it in the future.

If the bottom ocean temperature is 0,5°C, the maximal possible permafrost thickness would likely take 9000 years to thaw. But if this temperature increases, the process would go much faster, because the thawing also happens from the top down.

"If the temperature of the oceans increases by two degrees as suggested by some reports, it will accelerate the thawing to the extreme. A warming climate could lead to an explosive gas release from the shallow areas."

Permafrost keeps the free methane gas in the sediments. But it also stabilizes gas hydrates, ice-like structures that usually need high pressure and low temperature to form.

"Gas hydrates normally form in water depths over 300 meters, because they depend on high pressure. But under the gas hydrate may stay stable even where the pressure is not that high, because of the constantly low temperatures."

Gas hydrates contain huge amount of , and it is destabilization of these that is believed to have caused the craters on the Yamal Peninsula.

Explore further: Russia may lose 30% of permafrost by 2050

More information: The papers appeared i Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Reseach Letters:

Modeling the evolution of climate-sensitive Arctic subsea permafrost in regions of extensive gas expulsion at the West Yamal shelf: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10 … 014JG002685/abstract

Offshore permafrost decay and massive seabed methane escape in water depths >20 m at the South Kara Sea shelf: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10 … 2/grl.50735/abstract

Related Stories

Russia may lose 30% of permafrost by 2050

July 29, 2011

Russia's vast permafrost areas may shrink by a third by the middle of the century due to global warming, endangering infrastructure in the Arctic zone, an emergencies ministry official said Friday.

Methane-producing microbe blooms in permafrost thaw

March 10, 2014

In time with the climate warming up, parts of the permafrost in northern Sweden and elsewhere in the world are thawing. An international study published in Nature Communications describes a newly discovered microbe found ...

Recommended for you

Heavy oils and petroleum coke raising vanadium emissions

December 15, 2017

Human emissions of the potentially harmful trace metal vanadium into Earth's atmosphere have spiked sharply since the start of the 21st century due in large part to industry's growing use of heavy oils, tar sands, bitumen ...

Climate change made Harvey rainfall 15 percent more intense

December 14, 2017

A team of scientists from World Weather Attribution, including researchers from Rice University and other institutions in the United States and Europe, have found that human-caused climate change made the record rainfall ...

112 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
3.2 / 5 (35) Dec 22, 2014
We are in for a long, hot time.

Do you think the Deniers will apologize for being wrong and forcing this on us?
SayWhat
1.5 / 5 (26) Dec 22, 2014
"Do you think the Deniers will apologize for being wrong and forcing this on us?"

Do you think the alarmists will refund our tax dollars for being wrong and forcing this on us?

Honestly, how much has the temperature risen over the past 150 years? What horrible effects have we seen? Not predictions, but real effects.

Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (28) Dec 22, 2014
"Do you think the Deniers will apologize for being wrong and forcing this on us?"

Do you think the alarmists will refund our tax dollars for being wrong and forcing this on us?

Honestly, how much has the temperature risen over the past 150 years? What horrible effects have we seen? Not predictions, but real effects.



One of the earliest predictions of AGW was that the effects would be observed first at high altitudes and latitudes. Measurements have shown this to be true.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (30) Dec 22, 2014
Saywhat wants to tell us how the loss of shells in the copepods is good for us? Those tropical diseases in Alaskan birds are good for them? Desertification is a groove? The spread of tropical mosquitoes and their diseases is cool?

RWT
1.6 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2014
Don't even try to insult their religion SayWhat. These mooks are a lost cause and live in their own fantasy world. A fantasy world where cold weather, glacier advance, and less precipitation is better than warm weather, long growing seasons, and more arable land.
gkam
3.1 / 5 (25) Dec 22, 2014
Do any of the rest of you think RWT is really that unaware?

I don't. It would be a terrible fact.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2014
Do any of the rest of you think RWT is really that unaware?

I don't. It would be a terrible fact.

........perhaps you should move to the Arctic tundra so you can enjoy frigid climate the year 'round, that is while it is still there.As soon as it gets warm enough there, agribusinesses will move in & start growing food crops on the pristine tundra just as was done in Greenland a few thousand years ago when the Earth was in it's last cycle of orbital eccentricity bringing it closer to the sun........whoops that's right, proximity to the sun has nothing to do with global climate change does it.
SayWhat
1.3 / 5 (16) Dec 22, 2014
"... wants to tell us how the loss of shells in the copepods is good for us?"

From ocean "acidification", right?? And you're totally convinced there is no other mechanism that explains this, save AGW?

Oceans already change pH more than the range the IPCC states, read up.

High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison

"These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100."

plosone org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983
SayWhat
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2014
"One of the earliest predictions of AGW was that the effects would be observed first at high altitudes and latitudes. Measurements have shown this to be true."

Another was run-away warming, but we got the Pause?

RSS data doesn't show warming. Antarctic ice at record levels, Arctic ice rebounding from a cyclic low, polar bears are at record levels.

"Those tropical diseases in Alaskan birds are good for them?"

Migratory waterfowl, they do fly South??

"Millions of birds fly to Alaska from southern climates every summer and some have been shown to carry malaria parasites."

Wow, proof positive...NOT

"Desertification is a groove?"

What is that? But I'm sure it's caused by AGW.

"The spread of tropical mosquitoes and their diseases is cool?"

That never happens without warming? Did they migrate too?
Maybe we should bring back DDT?

Every report from the IPCC scales back CO2 sensitivity. They're chasing the wrong ghost.

SayWhat
1.4 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2014
Thanks RWT, but I just can't resist whacking the beehive.

I suspect I'll be banned pretty soon, so Happy Holidays and stay warm!
gkam
3.5 / 5 (33) Dec 22, 2014
Saywhat thinks he/she said something?

No beehive here, just educated folk arguing with those whose politics will not let them accept reality.
mooster75
4.6 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2014
Thanks RWT, but I just can't resist whacking the beehive.

I suspect I'll be banned pretty soon, so Happy Holidays and stay warm!

Is there anything sillier than a kook with a martyr complex?
Science Officer
1.2 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2014
We've had all these greenhouse gas emissions going on and didn't even realize it? Even with "secret" help, Mother Nature hasn't shown any global warming for over 18 years. Doesn't say much for the power of greenhouse gases does it?
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2014
Do any of the rest of you think RWT is really that unaware?

I don't. It would be a terrible fact.

........perhaps you should move to the Arctic tundra so you can enjoy frigid climate the year 'round, that is while it is still there.As soon as it gets warm enough there, agribusinesses will move in & start growing food crops on the pristine tundra just as was done in Greenland a few thousand years ago when the Earth was in it's last cycle of orbital eccentricity bringing it closer to the sun........whoops that's right, proximity to the sun has nothing to do with global climate change does it.

Oh goodie, benni the pretend engineer is back spouting his denialist rhetoric. How laughing naive.You ever even stepped in or on tundra dumdum? As stupid a statement as I have seen on this site, and that is saying something considering you are competing with ubamoron, cantthinkforhimself and againstseeing.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014
From ocean "acidification", right?? **snip**

High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison
Hey dumdum, did you even bother to read that study you cited? It's right here by the way : http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

You either cannot comprehend what you read in the abstract, or you are trying to purposefully mislead the readers of this forum. The cheery-picked line is presented utterly out of context, considering the authors of the above state in the abstract, that

"Such hypothesis-testing will provide a deeper understanding of the effects of OA. Both intuitively simple to understand and powerfully informative, these and similar comparative time series can help guide management efforts to identify areas of marine habitat that can serve as refugia to acidification as well as areas that are particularly vulnerable to future ocean change"
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2014
So, in other words, you lying pussack, they are studying how to try and identify some species that might be saved from the effects of ocean acidification by identifying some local areas that might act as safe harbors.

Because the oceans are acidifying. file:///C:/Users/owner/Downloads/Kroeker%20et%20al%202012%20Nature%20Climate%20Change.pdf

Because they are absorbing copius amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. http://news.natio...bon.html

Because humans are adding gigtonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. http://www.epa.go...co2.html

Deniers. Epically easy to counter because they are mostly epically fooled by their own epically stupid political beliefs.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2014
The study High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison is here: http://www.ploson...983-g004

Sorry, my link got corrupted.
ekim
4.4 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2014
We've had all these greenhouse gas emissions going on and didn't even realize it? Even with "secret" help, Mother Nature hasn't shown any global warming for over 18 years. Doesn't say much for the power of greenhouse gases does it?

A broken clock is right twice a day.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2014

........perhaps you should move to the Arctic tundra so you can enjoy frigid climate the year 'round, that is while it is still there.As soon as it gets warm enough there, agribusinesses will move in & start growing food crops on the pristine tundra just as was done in Greenland a few thousand years ago when the Earth was in it's last cycle of orbital eccentricity bringing it closer to the sun........whoops that's right, proximity to the sun has nothing to do with global climate change does it.


Oh goodie, benni the pretend engineer is back spouting his denialist rhetoric. How laughing naive.You ever even stepped in or on tundra dumdum? As stupid a statement as I have seen on this site, and that is saying something considering.


.....have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?
zz5555
5 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2014
We've had all these greenhouse gas emissions going on and didn't even realize it? Even with "secret" help, Mother Nature hasn't shown any global warming for over 18 years. Doesn't say much for the power of greenhouse gases does it?

Keep in mind that, despite your claim, we've actually seen a great deal of global warming over the last 18 years - despite the fact that natural drivers like the sun are trying to cool the earth. (http://www.skepti...1998.htm )

And that does say quite a bit about the power of greenhouse gases, doesn't it? ;)
pandora4real
5 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2014
"We are in for a long, hot time.

Do you think the Deniers will apologize for being wrong and forcing this on us?"

Their position is not falsifyable, so, by definition, they can't be wrong. And it's not a logical argument (obviously), it's for ego identity. If Rush SFB had done "Inconvenient Truth" instead of Al Gore they'd be outraged at human behavior.

They don't have a mind of their own and are not fully functioning humans, so, duh, don't argue with a spam bot. The question is why our public policy is being influenced by nutters and it's because the US is the biggest contributor and proud to pursue anti-intellectualism in all public policy. You know, if the house is on fire, you don't depend on a pyromaniac to call the fire department. If you do...you deserve what you get.
runrig
5 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2014
pristine tundra

Oh really!
Now you've not though this through have you?

First, any increase in available arable lands in the north will be more than offset by drought and heat taking away croplands further south.

Second Arctic soils are very poor - if not sparse and rocky (clue scoured by ice). Greenland's agriculture exists in the heads of valleys and coastal plains where there has been millenia of soils built up by glacial melt action

Third the growing season will be short - clue the Sun is low and the soil will still frteeze in winter.
Fourth - Oh - the zillions of tons of CH4 and CO2 that will be released by melting permafrost.

..whoops that's right, proximity to the sun has nothing to do with global climate change does it.

Oh, you spotted that.... well done
Pity you got it arse about face. Err, we're in a cooling phase - the SH gets ~8% more energy in its summer than does the NH in its.
You do know why that's important??
runrig
5 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
nother was run-away warming, but we got the Pause?


No just an acceleration once the feed-backs kick-in.
Try latching on the time-scales my friend.
I think you will find that the important bit of any forecast is WHEN it is to occur.
Still some decades away.
runrig
5 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
Thanks RWT, but I just can't resist whacking the beehive.

I suspect I'll be banned pretty soon, so Happy Holidays and stay warm!


Yes you'll need to do that - it is winter after all.
runrig
5 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
We've had all these greenhouse gas emissions going on and didn't even realize it? Even with "secret" help, Mother Nature hasn't shown any global warming for over 18 years. Doesn't say much for the power of greenhouse gases does it?


I'll think you'll find that "Mother Nature" stores 93% of its heat received from the SUn in the Oceans.
I suggest you Google PDO/ENSO
And a basic meteorology text will tell you the oceans heat the atmosphere and not viky verky.
Put those two together and apply some grey matter.
Or ... you could let the experts do it for you.
Just like every other thing you don't know about and get help for
FFS^3
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2014
"We are in for a long, hot time.

Do you think the Deniers will apologize for being wrong and forcing this on us?"

Their position is not falsifyable, so, by definition, they can't be wrong. And it's not a logical argument (obviously), it's for ego identity. If Rush SFB had done "Inconvenient Truth" instead of Al Gore they'd be outraged at human behavior.

They don't have a mind of their own and are not fully functioning humans, .......


Yep the psychology of Deniers is such that they cannot be wrong.

Any evidence produced by science is merely proof that science has got it wrong/is stupid/scientists are liars/are in it for the money/it's a liberalist/commie plot (US centric types - you do have the whackiest .... oh sorry forgot "Lord" Monckton)

And on the other hand any science that even so much has hints at anything different is lauded as the undeniable truth and proves them right (they forgetting that that position is mutually exclusive to the first).
Benni
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014
Any evidence produced by science is merely proof that science has got it wrong/is stupid/scientists are liars/are in it for the money/it's a liberalist/commie plot ....

And on the other hand any science that even so much has hints at anything different is lauded as the undeniable truth and proves them right (they forgetting that that position is mutually exclusive to the first).


Do you really comprehend why so many individuals such as myself think AGW types are just part of a "funny farm science" crowd of groupies? Well, here's the reason, almost none of you have at least a four year degree in any field of science involving chemistry & physics & to boot not a one of you knows how to solve a Differential Equation. Your computer keyboard is the closest affinity you've ever had to science & technology & you think because you've learned how to Copy & Paste that you've entered the ranks of the new genius elite along with almost every housewife in the country.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2014
.....have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?


Why yes, many. Have you ever admitted coming across one you couldn't?

As an aside, even if my answer had been no, what the f#*k difference would it have made to whether or not you have the slightest comprehension of climate science? (Hint:None!). Or, frankly given your asinine responses, even whether you understand science in general. (Same hint!)

Go ahead Benni, tell me about how a politician can influence a scientific fact, or how a direct measurement can be influenced by the political leaning of the device used to measure it. Because that is what your argument boils down to. A real engineer would understand that. And you are either too lazy or too dense to see that that is your argument.
foolspoo
5 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
Benni, a degree does not qualify data. and by george! let me know when you identify the massive irony in your reasoning for disqualifying the argument....
runrig
5 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014
Mr benni:
Do you really comprehend why so many individuals such as myself think AGW types are just part of a "funny farm science" crowd of groupies?

No.
Well, here's the reason, almost none of you have at least a four year degree in any field of science involving chemistry & physics & to boot not a one of you knows how to solve a Differential Equation.

Err ... I'm a retired meteorologist of 32 years experience with the UKMO.
You?
Your computer keyboard is the closest affinity you've ever had to science & technology & you think because you've learned how to Copy & Paste that you've entered the ranks of the new genius elite along with almost every housewife in the country.

Made an idiot of yourself there, didn't you, Eh?

Oh, and would you care to offer some science to rebut the rebuttals I posted --- rather than just sit back on the usual denialist hand-waving and mythic stupidity you posted.
zz5555
5 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2014
Well, here's the reason, almost none of you have at least a four year degree in any field of science involving chemistry & physics & to boot not a one of you knows how to solve a Differential Equation.

Not that it really matters, but my BA was in Physics and my MS and PhDs were in Aerospace Engineering. I was an actual, official rocket scientist. About all I did each day, every day, was to solve differential equations. (I work in satellites now.) To be honest, I haven't seen a comment from you that indicates that you know anything about any science or that you know how to solve a differential equation (let alone that you could say why you were solving a differential equation in the first place). So why you think it's important for others to have these qualifications that you don't demonstrate is beyond me.
Benni
2 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2014
I'm a retired meteorologist of 32 years experience

You?


I have 6 years engineering school education in Electrical/Nuclear Engineering, my degree is in Electrical Engineering minor in Nuclear.

Your computer keyboard is the closest affinity you've ever had to science & technology & you think because you've learned how to Copy & Paste that you've entered the ranks of the new genius elite along with almost every housewife in the country.


Made an idiot of yourself there, didn't you, Eh?
Nope, I know what meteorologists study & that isn't even close to where I'm at in energy systems design & testing. I can solve every Differential Equation in Einstein's GR.

Oh, and would you care to offer some science to rebut the rebuttals I posted
Sure, no heat on earth exists without energy output from the sun, & that's about as close as meteorologists ever get to nuclear physics without going over their heads. You should study Earth's orbital cycles.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014
Well, here's the reason, almost none of you have at least a four year degree in any field of science involving chemistry & physics & to boot not a one of you knows how to solve a Differential Equation.

To be honest, I haven't seen a comment from you that indicates that you know anything about any science or that you know how to solve a differential equation
........and certainly not yourself or you'd at least understand what "r" also doesn't understand as I just posted above.
runrig
5 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2014
mr benni:
I think you are rather full of yourself .... but that i just my opinion separated by the aether.
Sure, no heat on earth exists without energy output from the sun, & that's about as close as meteorologists ever get to nuclear physics without going over their heads. You should study Earth's orbital cycles.

And what makes you think that i don't?
Your comment re "proximity to the Sun" - presumably alluding to that as a reason behind AGW, shows you have no grasp of it.

And what, pray, makes you think that, whatever you do, is more significant than someone who spent their working professional life working with the atmosphere?

Oh BTW - I also studied engineering to degree level.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2014
I think you are rather full of yourself, but that i just my opinion separated by the aether
So now you're an AWT guy. I can see why you have issues with me.

Sure, no heat on earth exists without energy output from the sun, & that's about as close as meteorologists ever get to nuclear physics without going over their heads. You should study Earth's orbital cycles.

And what makes you think that i don't?
Your silence in the matter, it's deafening.

Your comment re "proximity to the Sun" - presumably alluding to that as a reason behind AGW, shows you have no grasp of it.
I understand Earth's orbital cycles, you obviously don't.

And what, pray, makes you think that, whatever you do, is more significant than someone who spent their working professional life working with the atmosphere?
For one thing, I make a lot more money than the coattail science crowd engaged in meteorology, & I make more money because I'm more useful to the planet's lifestyle.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (24) Dec 23, 2014
Benni, why are you in a science forum?

Shouldn't you be in a salesman's blog? Some place where the goobers are impressed by money?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014
Benni, why are you in a science forum?
Shouldn't you be in a salesman's blog? Some place where the goobers are impressed by money?


What novices like you fail to comprehend is why the AGW debate is losing it's sizzle in the minds of the average person. It's because you make apocalyptic predictions that fail to materialize, such as your 1998 Hockey Stick when CO2 levels spiked during the same one year period that it was much warmer than the average.

Ever since that epic year of the Hockey Stick, the ppm of CO2 has continued to climb with no accompanying correlation to atmospheric temperature, your math isn't working.........but you keep trying to sell your mangled math because it's only kind you know. As for me, I'll stick to the kind of math that keeps your electrical grid humming so you can continue peddling your AGW funny farm science while those of us who know better laugh at your math.

gkam
3.2 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2014

benni, have you ever generated electricity? Hmmmm? Know how it works?

Let's talk.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014

benni, have you ever generated electricity? Hmmmm? Know how it works?

Let's talk.

Sure, but you need to catch up because I'm already ahead of you in the math department. Tell me about your last math course so I know from what level our discourse can begin.
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2014

benni, have you ever generated electricity? Hmmmm? Know how it works?

Let's talk.

Sure, but you need to catch up because I'm already ahead of you in the math department. Tell me about your last math course so I know from what level our discourse can begin.


You've never demonstrated your mastery of math, just the empty rhetoric of a typical blowhard.
gkam
3.1 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2014
Math course? Are you still in school? No, benni, I want to talk power.

Where do you want to start?

I left off when I retired as a technical consultant to power companies.

Where do you want to start?
runrig
5 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2014
Mr benni:
So now you're an AWT guy. I can see why you have issues with me.

Err NO ... it's a figure o speech.
Your silence in the matter, it's deafening

And what silence is that?
It's you that are hand-waving and spouting mythic denialism.
I've told you the current orbital parameter favours cooling - because the Earth is currently closer to the Sun in the SH winter. I asked if you new what that meant .... silence.
I understand Earth's orbital cycles, you obviously don't.

??? nothing you've said demonstrates that my friend.
For one thing, I make a lot more money than the coattail science crowd engaged in meteorology, & I make more money because I'm more useful to the planet's lifestyle.

Well bully for you, I do hope it makes you happy.
I'm content in knowing I've more than likely saved the lives of aircrew (RAF) and balloonists that I briefed in my career and also the money saved re my advice to industry and aviation.

Oh, BTW Merry Xmas
runrig
5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
Ever since that epic year of the Hockey Stick, the ppm of CO2 has continued to climb with no accompanying correlation to atmospheric temperature, your math isn't working

Like I said my friend ... mythic denialist hand-waving.
http://www.realcl...000m.png
It's because you make apocalyptic predictions that fail to materialize, such as your 1998 Hockey Stick when CO2 levels spiked during the same one year period that it was much warmer than the average.

Do you have a comprehension problem with time as well as climate science?
There are no "apocalyptic predictions" in the current time frame .... we are decades away from those - though they will come on our current course .... aided by such as you.

Oh BTW: Are you any relation to Bennie Hill?
Just asking
Skepticus
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2014
"Do you think the Deniers will apologize for being wrong and forcing this on us?"

Do you think the alarmists will refund our tax dollars for being wrong and forcing this on us?

Honestly, how much has the temperature risen over the past 150 years? What horrible effects have we seen? Not predictions, but real effects.


Stop the gas from escaping your unworthy ass and mouth. We have enough of stupid or self-interested morons on this planet. Time for them to die away. Or be lined up and shot by the mob when their stupid sermons ran out of supporters. I'll keep a bullet for their lot. But, again, that's a waste of diminishing resources. A machete will be greener. If you deniers think that there is no silent, fed up horde who are going to butcher you idiot lot, think again. It always happens when the penny drops.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2014
correction.....

My prior post....
Should of course be SH Summer (NH winter) when the the Earth is closest the Sun.
Haven't had my breakfast yet! and my stomach's complaining.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
Stop the gas from escaping your unworthy ass and mouth. We have enough of stupid or self-interested morons on this planet. Time for them to die away. Or be lined up and shot by the mob when their stupid sermons ran out of supporters. I'll keep a bullet for their lot. But, again, that's a waste of diminishing resources. A machete will be greener. If you deniers think that there is no silent, fed up horde who are going to butcher you idiot lot, think again. It always happens when the penny drops.


Why do you AGW faithful resort to this kind of fascist/communist rhetoric when confronted with your lack of math skills? Hey, there's a fascist/communist paradise sitting just 90 miles off the coast of Florida where your hate filled rhetoric is a living reality, or another paradise called N Korea. You can move & enjoy the frequent power & internet outages brought to the populace by their police state, but you will have to give up your keyboard & computer first.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2014

the current orbital parameter favours cooling
Now make a study of the planet's periodic "wobble". There are two "wobble" effects, so be sure you study both or you will remain clueless.

For one thing, I make a lot more money than the coattail science crowd engaged in meteorology, & I make more money because I'm more useful to the planet's lifestyle.

Well bully for you, I do hope it makes you happy
. You can be sure it does, especially considering the fact that the average Meteorologist in the USA only makes $50k/yr & has never seen a Differential Equation he/she could solve.

I'm content in knowing I've more than likely saved the lives of aircrew (RAF) and balloonists that I briefed in my career and also the money saved re my advice to industry and aviation.
Well thank you my good weatherman, next time I land in Heathrow I will bow down on the tarmac & give praise to the runrigGod who unbeknownst to me may have just saved my life.
gkam
3.1 / 5 (21) Dec 24, 2014
Math skills?

Benni, the high-school forum is somewhere else.
Skepticus
5 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2014

Why do you AGW faithful resort to this kind of fascist/communist rhetoric when confronted with your lack of math skills?

Why bothered with a well reasoned, scientific and nuanced response? You don't remove a senseless, stubborn stump with paint brushes, you do it with dynamite. To the subject fit the cure. You don't rate a better one.
runrig
5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
You can be sure it does, especially considering the fact that the average Meteorologist in the USA only makes $50k/yr & has never seen a Differential Equation he/she could solve.


There are people in this world who do things because they are interested in it, and money is not a motivation.
Oh, and it depends on what sort of meteorologist you are. A modeler of NWP, in research, or, as I was, an "on the bench forecaster". In my case I studied the requisite fluid mechanics and equations of state etc .... and an enormous supercomputer does zillions of computations of them over the whole globe for me to study.
Well thank you my good weatherman, next time I land in Heathrow I will bow down on the tarmac & give praise to the runrigGod who unbeknownst to me may have just saved my life.

Such is the fate of the unheralded my friend.
But it's OK thanks - I been retired 8 yrs now.
runrig
4.9 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2014
Now make a study of the planet's periodic "wobble". There are two "wobble" effects, so be sure you study both or you will remain clueless.


3 parameters actually - 2 wobbles and the orbital eccentricity ( degree of elliptical ).
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2014
Why do you AGW faithful resort to this kind of fascist/communist rhetoric when confronted with your lack of math skills?
This is the kind of empty headed rhetoric we have come to expect from this "engineer".
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2014
3 parameters actually - 2 wobbles and the orbital eccentricity ( degree of elliptical ).

Sorry Run, meant to 5 ya and hit 4 by accident...

Anyway -
"Don't light that mat - "....
Benni
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2014
Now make a study of the planet's periodic "wobble". There are two "wobble" effects, so be sure you study both or you will remain clueless.


3 parameters actually - 2 wobbles and the orbital eccentricity ( degree of elliptical ).


....and you never knew anything about the two wobbles & the orbital eccentricity until I pointed them out to you in my above posts. Aren't you glad I came along to give you a short lesson in science for something you would have never known had it not been for my presence here, challenging you to actually learn something rather than allowing you to drone on boring us with your Hockey Stick politicking.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (20) Dec 24, 2014
....and you never knew anything about the two wobbles & the orbital eccentricity until I pointed them out to you in my above posts. Aren't you glad I came along to give you a short lesson in science for something you would have never known had it not been for my presence here, challenging you to actually learn something rather than allowing you to drone on boring us with your Hockey Stick politicking.

Benni, you sound like a broken record - of an album I didn't really like...
Give up the "I'm so smart" rhetoric and get a grip...
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2014
@Benni
"..and you never knew anything about the two wobbles & the orbital eccentricity until I pointed them out to you in my above posts. Aren't you glad I came along to give you a short lesson in science"

Claiming a meteroligist wouldn't know "anything about the two wobbles & the orbital eccentricity" is another example of you being an ignorant @sshole.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
........yeah zz5555, you'd be just the type to give a foul mouthed Vv your 5 star. What's wrong with you AGW types? All of you, so filled with hate, profanity, foul mouthedness, even going so far as to suggest firing squads for anyone pointing out factoids of the lack of your math & science skills.

I don't allow any of my kids use this site just because so many of you retired old codgers populating this site have simply never learned the finer points of civility. Maybe I'll suggest to PhysOrg they should have a maximum age on those posting commentary.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2014
Benni has kids? Does his teachers know about this?

" All of you, so filled with hate, profanity, foul mouthedness,"
----------------------------

No, that is just one of the goobers, I think. We all know which one.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2014
Bernni,
Aren't you hittin' the christmas cheer bottle a little early, tonite?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2014
I don't allow any of my kids use this site just because so many of you retired old codgers populating this site have simply never learned the finer points of civility. Maybe I'll suggest to PhysOrg they should have a maximum age on those posting commentary.

While I don't consider myself AGW, I do consider myself (as an ALMOST retired codger) as cautious. And many of these other "codgers" are raising the alarm bell for YOU AND YOUR KIDS future., not our own... Take yer head out of your own arse for a minute and realize that.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
Benni said:
Nope, I know what meteorologists study & that isn't even close to where I'm at in energy systems design & testing. I can solve every Differential Equation in Einstein's GR.


Many people might not quite understand this so I will expound on it a bit. The basics of almost all physics (and much more science) are predicated on both differential and integral equations. However, you are taught to solve those at the beginning of a course as an introduction to the way those parameters studied in a specific course behave in the simplest of situations and geometries. Once you get past the ideal circumstances the closed form equations can no longer be solved.

Instead, scientists are introduced to numerical methods for approximating solutions to, otherwise, intractable problems. It seems that Benni thinks that solving a differential equation (no mention of integral equations) is the be-all and end all of computation. Continued
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2014
Continued: The real question is: "Can Benni solve a real problem in mixed hydrodynamics, heat transfer, and chemistry?" There are no closed form equations for a complicated situation like that and we need to use numerical methods. So, the fact that Benni keeps dropping back to the much simpler case of the solutions of differential equations in closed form makes it clear his days in college (if he got that far) are decades in the past. Come on Benni, let us know what solvers you use for real world problems?
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2014
you never knew anything about the two wobbles & the orbital eccentricity
@beniTROLL
LMFAO
actually, Whyde and a few others of us had to point out what the term for "earth wobbles" this last JAN (jan 21, 2014)
You didn't even know that it was called Chandler wobbles or Milankovitch cycles till Whyde and i told you...
and i can prove THAT here: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
So much for your "engineering degree"
you couldn't even google a simple term! and i loved THIS gem you left
that is the "wobble cycle" of the Earth's axis of rotation. The best man can do is by not exacerbating the cycle too much which peripherally he may be able to do
tell us please... how is man going to alter that "Wobble cycle"?
please be specific... as specific as an ENGINEER might be
and you wonder why people call you a TROLL and say you are NOT an engineer?
LMFAO
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2014
Aren't you glad I came along to give you a short lesson in science
@beniTROLL
you mean like how to alter the milankovitch cycles? or were you talking about how to alter the Chandler wobbles with this little gem?
that is the "wobble cycle" of the Earth's axis of rotation. The best man can do is by not exacerbating the cycle too much which peripherally he may be able to do
you can find your decidedly non-engineering and non differential equation idiocy in the following link: http://phys.org/n...als.html
you also claimed
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way
So, which wobble was the one that took 200,000,000 years ??

If you're an engineer, I'm the Easter bunny
gkam
3.1 / 5 (21) Dec 25, 2014
. . the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way"
------------------------------------------------------
No,no.

The Earth is not wobbling, it is the Milky Way which wobbles.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2014
Mr Hill:
....and you never knew anything about the two wobbles & the orbital eccentricity until I pointed them out to you in my above posts. Aren't you glad I came along to give you a short lesson in science for something you would have never known had it not been for my presence here, challenging you to actually learn something rather than allowing you to drone on boring us with your Hockey Stick politicking.

If you want to think that be my guest - says much more about you than anything I can post
.
FYI: I studied the subject in my local library 40+ years ago, before I Joined the UKMO..... that's what you do when you are interested in a subject.
As opposed to just being in it for the money.
runrig
5 / 5 (14) Dec 25, 2014
Mr Hill:
I don't allow any of my kids use this site just because so many of you retired old codgers populating this site have simply never learned the finer points of civility. Maybe I'll suggest to PhysOrg they should have a maximum age on those posting commentary.

I would be grateful if you would quote anything that not has been entirely civil in my discourse with you.
This contrary to your discourse with others on here.
If you come on here spouting the stuff that has been firmly put in the box labeled "deniers climate myths" and offer nothing but that and vague hand-waving - Plus look at me aren't I great and rich to boot....... would try the patience of a saint my friend.
Whatever you may think of climate science and those that understand it, we certainly aren't saints, and don't profess to be.
Turning the world on it's logical head and calling us *whatever* is a well plied reflex with your ilk .... this despite the obvious illogicality of it. Logic also eluding you.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2014
Maybe I'll suggest to PhysOrg they should have a maximum age on those posting commentary.

Actually that is illegal but as you appear to know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING I'm sure you're already aware of that.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (17) Dec 25, 2014
Different equations, Trigonometries, E=mc2, calculus, spectrographical neutronic engineering, Einstein-Skippy said it, all energy is photons, all heat in the earth comes from the sun, semi-circular universes, thermal underwears, blah, blah and a bunch other blahs.

Now that I got my qualifications out of the way, I would like to come to the aid of my former classmate Bennie-Skippy. I know for a fact he graduate from the same engineer's school I went to and even though he was at the bottom of the class, he is just as qualified to be the nucleus engineer like me who graduated at the top of the class.

Merry Christmas everybody. You too Bennie-Skippy.
plaasjaapie
1 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2014
So... do we have measurements over a long period in the past where this leakage wasn't happening OR have they just started taking data, spotted the leakage and instantly attributed it all to man-caused global warming, rather like they did with the ozone hole over the antarctic a few decades ago. Warmists have played pull the wool so many times in what they consider a good cause that I am always suspicious when I see articles like this.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (17) Dec 25, 2014
Now make a study of the planet's periodic "wobble". There are two "wobble" effects, so be sure you study both or you will remain clueless.


3 parameters actually - 2 wobbles and the orbital eccentricity ( degree of elliptical ).


....and you never knew anything about the two wobbles & the orbital eccentricity until I pointed them out to you in my above posts. Aren't you glad I came along to give you a short lesson in science for something you would have never known had it not been for my presence here, challenging you to actually learn something rather than allowing you to drone on boring us with your Hockey Stick politicking.


What a rube! Yea right Benni the pretend-engineer, none of us was aware of the Earth's different eccentricities until you deigned to let us in on them. You are a moron Benni, and worse, you are a moron with a political agenda.
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (17) Dec 25, 2014
Merry Christmas everybody. You too Bennie-Skippy.
@Uncle Ira
Vous êtes un grand goofball
vous avez une grande noël aussi, et une heureuse nouvelle année
Laissez les bons temps rouler!

I don't allow any of my kids use this site just because so many of you retired old codgers populating this site have simply never learned the finer points of civility
the Pot calling us kettles black, here!
LMFAO

have a great christmas everyone
or
happy holidays

whichever you prefer
Shootist
1 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2014
methane has been leaking at the margins since before the end of the last glaciation.

"the polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson
nevermark
5 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2014
"the polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson


Its not a complete climate thread until Shootist trots out his appeal to false authority (in this case a non-climatologist) and someone points out (for the thousandth time) that regardless of the science behind climate change, Dyson is just a bright guy with a non-expert opinion.

If anything screams troll it is resorting to the same lame statement over and over again.

Shootist does not disbelieve climate change. If he did, whey would he keep posting an utterly discreditable opinion.

It seems very unlikely that the very vast majority of climate experts in the world (including public statements acknowledging human caused climate change by Exxon, British Petroleum, and other major oil companies) are wrong. But if they are, an honest skeptic would have some reasonable arguments for their contrarian views, not a habitual recycled fallacy to post.
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2014
My Willie is Bigger than Yours. (It is even bigger than a polar bears.)

Methanogens- do they live up there or not? How are they fareing? What will the consequence of a methanogen bloom be?

So many questions- so few answers.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2014
"Science Officer" claimed
We've had all these greenhouse gas emissions going on and didn't even realize it?
Wrong, its been tracked for decades,subject was under discussion for ~100yrs, thermal properties of CO2 known for at least that long, proven !

"Science Officer" claimed
Even with "secret" help, Mother Nature hasn't shown any global warming for over 18 years
Really - R U completely ignorant, comments on this please & with CO2 ?
http://woodfortre...ormalise

"Science Officer" claimed
Doesn't say much for the power of greenhouse gases does it?
Take a peek at this & get a grip on radiative emissions & how CO2 interferes:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Education (in Physics) is so VERY important, people who have trouble with understanding core Science don't know physics :-(
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (17) Dec 26, 2014
@Benni, here's a simple challenge re your claim

You've often blurted claims re others NOT being able to solve Differential Equation (DE), implying U can :-)
Strange Y U provoke & as thermodynamics politely advised U its not as easy as U imagine..!

So Benni, here's a simple challenge for U & Water_Prophet who claimed to graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC) :-)

1. Total Solar Insolation (TSI) has more short wave (SW) energy than long wave (LW) radiance
https://en.wikipe...m_en.svg

2. Earth converts SW to LW (SW emission is negligible)
3. LW to space interfered with by absorption/re-radiation of GHG (esp CO2)
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Here we go Benni, ire your claim on DEs, offer an estimate of LW radiation resistivity due to CO2 & for Water_Prophet suggest Y it's so much more than the thermal energy contributed by burning fossil fuels ~230,000L petrol/sec (0.1% of TSI) ?

Or google scholar ;-)
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 26, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet claimed
How can you say I ignore longwave radiations?
By evidence U ignored long wave (LW) radiation re CO2's interference to space, U only saw TSI.

U write fossil fuel (FF) proportion of TSI, yet U IGNORE FACT Earth converts short wave (SW) to LW & CO2 interferes with emission to Space. Nobody is disagreeing FF adds heat & CO2. But, U, as a claimed Physical Chemist (PC) haven't acknowledged CO2's interference U even claimed "CO2 is a red herring", which is obviously stupidly WRONG yuk !

Water_Prophet claimed
..1998 was a very hot year; Industry was booming and the Sun was at/near a max
Huh? U claim Sun TSI was at max ? Not according to this
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Water_Prophet claimed to be a PC, yet doesn't write like one, does Water_Prophet accept:-

1. TSI mainly SW
2. Earth converts SW to LW
3. LW to space interfered by CO2

Oh so Simple Water_Prophet I asked before, WHY do u evade it ?
Bart_A
1 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2014
SImply a terribly written article. This guy needs to re-take English 101.
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2014
A brilliant Article and Excellent comments by our well respected scientists on this site making once again bafoons of all the denialist clan.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2014
Now now clownies, you did not expect me to just say a few lines and leave now did you ? ? ...naughty naughty...
Lets round it up this sitcom really pushed the clown's talents to new heights, and am now regretting that i gave away that special 2 brain cell award on the previous topic....

So once again the clowns trying so hard to impress the Scientists, failing that however succeeded in shining those noses brighter than ever before,

benni hillbilly: Now i wonder if this monkeyshow actually knows he is living on a planet with creatures that posses brains that actually knows stuff because they are smart Scientists, unlike him feeling isolated, and strange, while looking through those skewed eyes of his wondering what these things Scientists do and say actually is.. Don't feel sad my monkey because you won aprize today ! Your dumb comments earned you a can of wax that would keep the shine on your nose shining for the next 10 years... atta boy..well done..

HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2014
Sayyyyyyy...Saywhat, Thanks Maggnus for putting some extra walmart shoe shine on this clowns nose. Maggnus put it best: "Deniers. Epically easy to counter because they are mostly epically fooled by their own epically stupid political beliefs"

And how Epically stupid this clown proved to be today, did daddy dum keep you in the same box as his silkworms, did these little wormies looked at you strange when you were beeing kept isolated with them... ? They did so for a reason you know....
As for the rest:
plassjaapie
shootist
egletone

I was not really laughing that much at your comments, you 3 goons better brush up on your ability to entertain, focus on eating that carrot through a tennis raquet, you can do it... We know you can, we expect to see renewed talent from you clowns in the new year...you goons don't want to miss out on the awards i'll be presenting next year... but you've got to earn it ! !

HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2014
Captain Stumpy, again thanks for adding shine, by providing links to previous posts from the same clown. (i'll have to start wearing shades though, the shine is getting too bright for the naked eye to observe...)
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2014
WOW..........it's Sunday morning & the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick is delivering the usual apocalyptic sermons from its Holy Books of "funny farm science" with the usual parishioners, of Stumpo, Maggie, Helo, MM, etc, rolling down the aisles. Jeepers ladies, at least keep your skirts down.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2014
...Oops forgot to lock one of the monkey's cages... but we'll give him a 1 out of 5 for at least trying... ;)
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2014
Benni yet again with complaint but NO Science
..usual parishioners, of Stumpo, Maggie, Helo, MM, etc, rolling down the aisles. Jeepers ladies, at least keep your skirts down
Wouldn't it be quicker, easier & far smarter to answer the 3 questions I posed ?

Otherwise you look squarely like U are trying to evade - just like Water_Prophet, who claimed to be a Physical Chemist (PC) - what do U claim Benni - ANY Physics education & the maths of um these things U claim - Differential Equations (DE) ?

WHY can't U get on with it ?

Science, Physics Please Benni ?

Anything less makes u look intellectually dis-ingenuous & emotionally feeble... :-(

Lets start with 1.
Simple Question Benni, do U accept TSI has high shortwave (SW) component ?
TechnoCreed
4.9 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2014
@MM
I am not coming here to argue against your position as far as climate warming is concerned. But since there is an important didactic direction in your comments, I think you should be careful with the wording you use. The radiation of the suns reaching earth goes from some near UV and end in the near IR and is ALL part of the shortwave spectrum. So I think that it is inappropriate to talk about the sun's spectrum with the term 'high shortwave component'.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2014
@benniTROLL
parishioners, of Stumpo, Maggie, Helo, MM, etc
science is about following the evidence, and the evidence speaks volumes... for instance, the following studies show a great deal about the properties of CO2 as well as define how global warming can cause localised cold snaps in the weather:
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

We can also show where, given your typical post, you are clearly not in the scientific fields, especially in any field that requires knowledge of MHD, thermodynamics, physics or the properties of particles.

Since you've claimed engineering knowledge, you've also never been able to validate said claims

So ... we test you

Post all the inconsistencies and false mathematics in the above studies: you can be as specific as you want to demonstrate your mathematical and engineering prowess to us "retired old codgers"

Thanks
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 29, 2014
TechnoCreed rightly observed
So I think that it is inappropriate to talk about the sun's spectrum with the term 'high shortwave component'
Fair comment accepted, loose language apology, my thoughts at the time high as in highest energy, higher power in relation to CO2's absorption highest at lower frequencies & comment size down to one post. Acknowledged could have been better crafted, now I have the space to improve :-)

Goes to show Water_Prophet & Benni didn't notice, when those with training can :-)

Ok, in regard to:-
https://upload.wi...m_en.svg

It would be true to say in respect of Earth's response to Total Solar Insolation (TSI) the bulk of the shortwave (SW) radiation is converted to longwave radiation & with negligible emission of SW from Earth to Space.

Water_Prophet claimed to be a Physical Chemist & claims "CO2 is a red herring" yet refuses to look at CO2's interference of LW from Earth to Space.
EnricM
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2014
"Do you think the Deniers will apologize for being wrong and forcing this on us?"

Do you think the alarmists will refund our tax dollars for being wrong and forcing this on us?

Honestly, how much has the temperature risen over the past 150 years? What horrible effects have we seen? Not predictions, but real effects.



A) Which taxes?
B) ARe you going to come over to Holland to convince our channels to freeze? Pretty please, it's 17 year since our last Elfstedentocht and this year we have only had 1 day of snow :_(
You can talk to our channels, telling them that it's all a big hoax from the alarmists who only want to tax the poor US citizen and steal your guns. Please, we would love to skate again.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2014
Saywhat wants to tell us how the loss of shells in the copepods is good for us? Those tropical diseases in Alaskan birds are good for them? Desertification is a groove? The spread of tropical mosquitoes and their diseases is cool?


All Alaskan birds are flying south for this winter and the last 17+ winters ... because when the record breaking Polar ice cap gets as thick and fat as it is right now, there is nothing for those birds to eat.

What desertification? Has anyone noted the record breaking rain (and now snow) fall in Nevada and Arizona this year? ... Washington? ... Oregon? ... Colorado? ... Idaho? ... Scandinavia? ... Russia?

The spread of mosquitoes is not new ... but you are right about one thing: g'ment has been cutting down all of the mosquito repellent trees in the west, thus the flies and mosquitoes are returning.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2014
How can we give some of these global worms zero stars? And some of these whinny "changed" climatologists need a change of diapers.

Come on you "progressive" Fascist taxsucking tools, put on your boots and lets go skiing!
SURFIN85
5 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2014
Ed, you think those researchers are lying about what their equipment is telling them? That they are scam artists? Smart enough to fool everybody but too dumb to realize there are easier, more lucrative scams in this world?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2015
What a rube! Yea right Benni the pretend-engineer
Youll note that maggnus only likes pretend engineers when they agree with him.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2015
What a rube! Yea right Benni the pretend-engineer
Youll note that maggnus only likes pretend engineers when they agree with him.


Really Otto? Why, because I think your childish ongoing rants against gkam are exactly that - childish rants? You're real big on attacking gkam because you think he isn't who he says, but have you read the drivel from Benni? How does hypocrisy help your cause Otto?

We going to have another bitch slap fight now? How cute.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2015
What a rube! Yea right Benni the pretend-engineer
Youll note that maggnus only likes pretend engineers when they agree with him


Really Otto? Why, because I think your childish ongoing rants against gkam are exactly that - childish rants? You're real big on attacking gkam because you think he isn't who he says, but have you read the drivel from Benni? How does hypocrisy help your cause Otto?

We going to have another bitch slap fight now? How cute.
I dont know I have benni turned off. But yeah, I think people who think that fallout is the leading cause of lung cancer probably dont know much about much of anything.

And I think claiming to be a professional when youve already admitted youre not, in order to convince people you know something about fallout, is pretty infantile. Or senile, whichever.

Whether they agree with you on AGW or not, or engage in mutual butt-rubbings, or not.

Dont you agree?
https://www.youtu...XpLOYfog
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2015
I dont know I have benni turned off. But yeah, I think people who think that fallout is the leading cause of lung cancer probably dont know much about much of anything.

And I think claiming to be a professional when youve already admitted youre not, in order to convince people you know something about fallout, is pretty infantile. Or senile, whichever.

Whether they agree with you on AGW or not, or engage in mutual butt-rubbings, or not.

Dont you agree?
https://www.youtu...XpLOYfog


Yes I agree.

But don't you agree that following them from thread to thread to denigrate every post or using a sock puppet to down vote them in some infantile effort to embarrass or harass them is no better than playing the schoolyard bully? Mutual butt rubbing or not?

I don't agree with almost anything Benni says, but but I sure don't feel the need to comment on every post he makes. Ever heard the adage about two wrongs?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2015
I spend lots of time here. I'm sure I've missed lots of gkam bullshit. He does 60 empty, one-line posts a day. But if I do see some Im going to have a problem with it. You should as well. It doesn't do your cause any good to have liars and abusers like that on your side.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2015
Poor otto. I think if he had a life of his own, he would have been a better person.

Sorry, otto, but some of us are real, whether you exist or not. And since you cannot intelligently debate an issue (because you do not read the entire wiki page), you turn to personal nasties.

And you DO seem to have a problem with all of them, otto, since you seek them out to give me your "ones", like a petulant adolescent, bent on "getting even".

Tell me again where you will put all that nuclear waste, and how clean it is at Fukushima.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2015
Tell me again
Tell me again how fallout is the main cause of lung cancer. Tell me again how h2 explosions can throw vessel parts 120km. Tell me again how plutonium is raining down on Idaho.

Tell me how a trained engineer could actually post bullshit like this with a straight face (hint: only phony engineers could post bullshit like this.)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2015
*Snip* But if I do see some Im going to have a problem with it. You should as well. It doesn't do your cause any good to have liars and abusers like that on your side.


My cause? Pray tell, what cause do I have in your mind?

gkam makes some interesting comments, and on the whole he has a reasonable grasp of science in general. You argue that he lies about his background, but I have seen you make this claim against others, including me, when you get frustrated and resort to intimidation and innuendo. So, I take such pronouncements from you with a healthy dose of salt.

I don't support the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and if gkam uses such, then he is wrong. That still doesn't make what you do right. Put him on ignore if it bothers you that much Otto.

I find you be a reasonably thoughtful poster most of the time, but every now and then you seem to lose all perspective.
Estevan57
5 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2015
Well put, Maggnus.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2015
what cause do I have in your mind?
You know that AGW crap.
You argue that he lies about his background
No, when asked he admits freely that he has no education, no degree, and no licence as an engineer. But then he goes right on to claim that thats exactly what he is.

He also explains positions he has held which were obviously job shop temp, with the typical inflated title. Sanitation engineers pick up my garbage every friday, yes?

"I worked on the same base as chuck yeager and so Im an expert on blahblah" says gkam.
but I have seen you make this claim against others, including me
Yes pussycat eyes the NASA engineer for one. Not you. Refresh my memory.
That still doesn't make what you do right
When ANYONE claims to be an engineer to justify idiot comments about plutonium raining down on idaho, you can be sure I will comment on it.
Put him on ignore if it bothers you that much
Put benni on your ignore list then. Or dont tell me what to do. 'Kay?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2015
Awww look at you, getting all mad again. That "AGW crap" is certainly a hell of a lot better than that that fraudulent LENR crap you spout about. To bad you're too childish to see that.

I could not care less whether you ignore him, play with yourself or stick your computer up your ass you childish little pissant. You were right to call him out initially. But, like the childish bully you are, you just couldn't let it go.

Going to bring out your sock-puppet now?

I don't like bullies, and I will call you out every time I see you do it. And you can stamp your little feet and cry all you want.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2015
But, like the childish bully you are, you just couldn't let it go
Like I said whenever gkam or anyone else posts a ringer or pretends to be who they're not, I will respond. If gkam continues to repost or pretend, I will continue to respond.

Gkam exposed his ignorance of high energy alpha 2 days ago and then pretended to look for 40yo info from when he was a technicians ASSISTANT, to back up his lies. All he had to was own up, and admit he didn't know what he was talking about. A sign of maturity yes?

He stops, I stop. In the meantime, call me all the names you want. And continue please to defend all the liars and pretenders who are kind enough to rub your butt for you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2015
Hey magnuts I have a suggestion. Instead of attacking me, which is obviously not very productive, why don't you help defend the things gkam says?

For instance you could help him explain how Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km. You could help defend his assertion that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide. You could find sources which confirm his insistence that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer. You could photoshop an MS in engineering from the University of Bullshit for him. Those sorts of things.

What do you think? I'm sure he would appreciate it.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2015
Hey magnuts I have a suggestion. Instead of attacking me, which is obviously not very productive, why don't you help defend the things gkam says?
Why ever would I do that?

What do you think? I'm sure he would appreciate it.
I think you're on crack or something. That you miss the point doesn't surprise me. That you think gkam needs any help from me makes me laugh. I think you think you are losing the discussion you are having with him.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2015
I think you're on crack or something. That you miss the point doesn't surprise me. That you think gkam needs any help from me makes me laugh
Really? So how would you explain how Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km, that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide, that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, that plutonium is raining down on idaho, that high-energy alpha radiation cant penetrate skin, etcetcetc?

And if you saw someone posting this sort of thing, and claiming that you should believe him because he is an engineer (when you know hes not) and also once insulted chuck yeager to his face, wouldnt you want to object if you knew he was wrong?

Do you really think this sort of behavior should go unchallenged? Irrespective of whether or not he complements you from time to time and 5/5s everything you say?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2015
Really? So how would you explain how Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km, that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide, that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, that plutonium is raining down on idaho, that high-energy alpha radiation cant penetrate skin, etcetcetc?
No idea. Haven't looked at it, have little interest in it, don't expect I ever will. Why are you trying to draw me into your discussion with gkam, on either side?

And if you saw someone posting this sort of thing, and claiming that you should believe him because he is an engineer and also once insulted chuck yeager to his face, wouldnt you want to object if you knew he was wrong?

Do you really think this sort of behavior should go unchallenged? Irrespective of whether or not he complements you from time to time and 5/5s everything you say?
Of course I would object, and I agree such claims should be challenged.

You're still missing the point Otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2015
No idea... You're still missing the point
The point is, why are you defending someone who posts shit like this? You weren't even aware of this nonsense yet you chose to defend him because he drops innumerable one-line posts in support of what you say, and uprates you all the time.

And why would you assume that I would be attacking people without good reason? I have no idea who gkam is. I object to what he posts. I am always specific about what I object to and why. And if I choose to be insulting it is only in response to insulting posts.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2015
We have drifted WAY off topic, so I will try to give one answer that sums it all up. I actually thought I succinctly explained what I mean here:

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

But, as that seems not to suffice, I will put it another way.

I take issue with the way you are going after gkam, because I think that, on the whole, he is an intelligent poster. He makes the occasional outlandish claim, which he should be called on, and I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.

I don't like that you try to bully him by following him from thread to tread, making the same comments. I think it is hypocritical given that you do not take to task others who clearly have an agenda that is not science based, and who make far more outrageous claims than does gkam. I think that they deserve your derision far more than does he.

I am not defending gkam per se, I would say the same if it was someone else, with caveats.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2015
I don't like that you try to bully him by following him from thread to tread, making the same comments. I think it is hypocritical given that you do not take to task others who clearly have an agenda that is not science based, and who make far more outrageous claims than does gkam. I think that they deserve your derision far more than does he.
@Otto
Maggnus has a point
There are far worse people that you ignore
WHY?

a few come to mind that truly deserve derision more-so than any other poster here, in fact:
realitycheck
jvk
any zephir sock puppet
shootist
ubavontuba in ANY climate thread
benni
reg_mundy
johanfprins
deliriousneuron
cantdrive85
hannes_alfven
in fact, ANY of the electric universe posters are simply regurgitating their dogma and can be refuted with a simple 30 second search, link and post
some stuff doesn't even require that much!
like claims about astrophysicists not knowing/learning about plasma physics

so whats up with THAT?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.