CO2
emissions reach 415 ppm; this time last year they were 413 ppm.
"This
is phenomenal. To reach the highest ever recorded measurement of CO2
in the atmosphere in January - a full 3 months before the annual
maximum is expected. The previous record was 415.70 ppm on 15 May
2019."
A
point I had to yield to the climate change deniers
Usually
it is fairly easy to counter any disinformation coming from climate
change deniers.
One
of the arguments they use is that CO2 is not a pollutant and is
important for photosynthesis.
I
wrote a fairly “off-the-cuff” rejoinder (to comments by Vinny Eastwood on Facebook) pointing out that no one
is saying it is a pollutant because it is a trace gas that is very
important in maintaining the thermal balance of the atmosphere -too
little and we freeze, too much and we burn, put quite simply.
I
decided, in a free moment to check for myself and imagine my HORROR
when I discovered that conventional websites are saying just that
The
US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section
7602(g) defines an air pollutant:
The
term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination
of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological,
radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and
byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or
otherwise enters the ambient air.
***
This is preposterous.
CO2 is indeed an important trace gas and we could not live without it. It is is CO2 that is turned into oxygen by plants in photosynthesis.
It is an incredibly important trace gas for maintaining the energy balance of the planet, belied by its small amount in the atmosphere (we don't breathe, or use in any way that I know of, the nitogen which accounts for 78 percent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is an important trace gas.
Wikipedia says:
Carbon
dioxide(CO2)
is an important trace
gasin Earth's
atmosphere.
It is an integral part of the carbon
cycle,
a biogeochemical cycle in which carbonis
exchanged between the Earth's oceans,
soil, rocks and the biosphere. Plantsand
other photoautotrophsuse
solar energy to produce carbohydrate from atmospheric carbon dioxide
and water by photosynthesis.
Almost all other organisms depend on carbohydrate derived from
photosynthesis as their primary source of energy and carbon
compounds. CO2absorbs
and emits infraredradiation
at wavelengthsof
4.26 µm(asymmetric
stretching vibrational
mode)
and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode) and consequently is
a greenhouse
gasthat
plays a significant role in influencing Earth's
surface temperature through the greenhouse
effect.[1]"
The incredibly spurious claim that "CO2 is a pollutant" plays into the hands of climate change deniers who hardly get anything right.
They did, however, get this one right.
There really is no need to lie to put a point across.
I have been unable to monitor events in the Arctic recently but Margo has done a very important analysis and shows that the data is completely different from what was there at the end of 2019 before they shut off the data for both CO2 and CH4 (and, interestingly, none of their other data.
Is there something up that they are trying to cover up?
REFERENCES This is how it looks today on CAMS.Notice the top of Alaska.
This is how it looked at the end of December.
This
is Margo's latest analysis
Analysis
of New Methane & Carbon Dioxide Data on CAMS with Margo (Jan. 15,
2020)
And yet this is how this situation was represented back in July!
We rest our case. I wonder what the EU technocrats at Copernicus would say. ***
I
just wanted to share these comments from P.M to Margo's video:
Null
school had no data for CO2 and some other data for a couple of days
. Do you think that there climate data web site are being
manipulated to hide what is going on in the atmosphere . It is
difficult to trust any web sites when the data does not seem real .
Having faith in these data website is really important , so I really
don't no what to believe to accurate anymore . I am a new subscriber
to your channel and it's great to find you and be able to understand
what you are explaining . Thank you .
I have not yet had an opportunity to go through this yet but am posting this as a matter of urgency.
IS
THERE A
METHANE EVENT
UNDERWAY?
Analysis
of New Methane & Carbon Dioxide Data on CAMS with Margo (Jan. 15,
2020)
After
almost 2 weeks of no new data, CAMS has started releasing new methane
and carbon dioxide data for 2020. Margo looks at the new data and
compares it to her previous recordings of CAMS images. She notes a
considerable difference in the colors on the maps compared to what
was seen before the lapse. Additionally, so far there is missing
data for Jan. 1-4 and Jan. 6, 2020. This report is from yesterday
Meanwhile, this is from NOAA
2434
ppb Peak Reading with 50% of the chart whited out by NOAA.
The
Mean is an accurate 1886 ppb, but it does not matter when half of the
methane data is gone.
Unexpectedly
high level of subsea permafrost degradation was recorded by a
Russian-led scientific ]expedition that spent more than a month in
the seas of the eastern Arctic. A
record high methane gas emission in a shape of an underwater
‘fountain’ was registered at the beginning of October east of
Bennett island in the East Siberian Sea. ‘It
was a needle in a haystack chase, to find an exact place of a methane
seep in dark sea waters, but we found it!
'Just
right off the Academician Keldysh scientists noticed a spot of
emerald-coloured water, with gas rushing to surface in thousands of
bubble threads’, said expedition member Sergey Nikiforov, a
communications experts of the Tomsk Politechnical University.
The
area of the fountain covered about five metres, with water ‘so
violently boiling
with methane bubbles’ that scientists skipped using plastic cones
for sampling
and instead collected the gas in buckets.
‘This
was the most powerful seep I have ever observed. No one has ever
recorded anything similar’ said head of the expedition Igor
Semiletov, who has participated in 45 Arctic expeditions.
Bubbling water of the East Siberia Sea. Pictures: Tomsk Polytechnic University
Unexpectedly
high speed of degradation of subsea permafrost has been recorded.
'In
some areas the roof of subsea permafrost thawed to the stability
horizons of gas hydrates. Moreover, it has been proved that over the
past 30 years speed of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost
doubled compared to previous centuries and reached 18 centimetres per
year which is significantly higher than in earlier estimates', said
professor Semiletov.
'This
result makes us reconsider the belief that subsea permafrost is
stable and can only thaw by a few metres by the end of 21st century',
he stressed.
First
video of the largest methane seep (fountain) so far discovered in the
Arctic Ocean, credit Tomsk Politechnic University
KEY
FACTS
Expedition
set off from Arkhangelsk, northwest Russia, on September 17.
It
was organised by Shirshov Institute of Oceanography (Moscow) with the
Ilyichev Pacific Ocean Institute of Oceanography (Vladivostok).
65
scientists from 12 research organisations across 7 countries (Russia,
Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, UK, USA) were on board of
Academician Keldysh research vessel.
Researchers
studied seas of the eastern Arctic: East Siberian sea, Laptev sea and
Kara sea.
Aims
of the expedition were
To
study state of subsea (underwater) permafrost;
To
study flows of greenhouse gases in the Arctic atmosphere;
To
study ecological state of waters and seabed sediments along the
Northern Sea Route (NSR).
What
they actually established
High
levels of degradation of subsea permafrost.
Speed
of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost has doubled compared to
previous centuries and turned out to be higher than earlier
estimates.
Microplastic
has been discovered in seas of the eastern Artic thousands miles away
from residential settlements.
What
else did researchers say?
Elena
Kudryashova, rector of Northern Federal University, Arkhangelsk:
'Another important subject of our research was study of various types
of microplastic in the seas of the eastern Arctic.
'It
is important to compare and analyse results of all expeditions
because microplastic represents a serious threat to organisms and sea
ecosystems as a whole.'
Pictures
of the methane gas seep credit Tomsk Polytechnic University
More Arctic Methane Shenanigans: Ivy League university Yale in the United States of America is worried that their January 2019 propaganda video on methane hydrates wasn’t swallowed hook, line and sinker by human beings connected to the Internet.
The first sign that you are reading a political propaganda piece and not science communication, is when an article isn’t talking about Climate Element X, but rather about human beings connected to the Internet who are worried about Climate Element X. Sometimes this may be hard to recognise, but in our case, it’s spelled out:
«Such concerned voices in recent weeks are the focus of this post»
Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections
This may seem trivial to an untrained eye, but when the focus isn’t Climate Element X, but concerned voices, then the scientific discipline involved is also no longer climate or natural sciences, but social or political sciences. In a nutshell: How can we make these darn concerned voices go away? Josef Stalin or George W. Bush could prolly suggest one or two ways such voices can be silenced. But let’s read Yale’s article carefully.
«The blogosphere for years has been abuzz, and particularly in recent weeks, with information – and, equally importantly, misinformation – about the near-term risks posed by uncontrollable and potentially catastrophic releases of large Arctic deposits of methane hydrates, ice-like substances holding a powerful greenhouse gas.»
Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: Several high–profile voices from David Attenborough and Stephen Hawking to scientists and world leaders have stated in recent years that Climate Change is the defining or most important issue of our time. Yale University shouldn’t be so surprised to also find human beings connected to the Internet who share this view. In fact, their chosen authority figure, USGS Lead Scientist Carolyn Ruppel, confirms the fact that these hydrate deposits are thawing already, and thereby also releasing their methane to the Earth’s atmosphere.
«Highly vocal have been voices cautioning about existing or perhaps imminent methane releases to the atmosphere, resulting in global catastrophe or cataclysm and threatening human civilization.»
Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: Any thawing of sediments under a rapidly warming ocean containing hundreds of gigatons of a highly potent greenhouse gas is of course a potential threat to human agriculture & civilisation, and cautioning about these emissions by our planet itself seems, if anything, highly appropriate. This is something we need to know about, and Yale University ought to look closer at its own university shield, which in English has the motto “Light and Truth”. Yale shouldn’t take it upon themselves to spread Darkness and Lies, so should praise any and all information campaigns about these very important issues instead of trying to quell them.
«Such concerned voices in recent weeks are the focus of this post, as many appear to be in response to the January 29 post of videographer Peter Sinclair’s monthly video, at this site. That video included interviews with several highly regarded experts pushing back on the doom-and-gloom “methane time bomb” meme.»
Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: Peter Sinclair’s video on YouTube was a cleverly crafted propaganda video, in which scientific authority and language were abused in order to give human beings connected to the Internet the impression that ice couldn’t melt because it requires heat. The USGS Lead Scientist was kicking in open doors with her “revelation” that hydrate meltdown requires heat — we all know that this heat is available in abundance once the thawing front in the ESAS reaches more deposits deeper down in the subsea permafrost layers. Calling this irreversible deeper and deeper thaw into the methane containing layers a “time bomb” is hardly an exaggeration.
«It’s no surprise that some of those recent and ongoing online commentaries mischaracterize the expert perspectives reflected in that January 29 video. One comes to expect that of the online world of commentary and hyperbole.»
Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: What’s the issue with the “online world” and human beings connected to the Internet? Does Yale expect people in 2019 to arrive by horse and carriage to deliver their commentary, or do they perhaps prefer surface mail or telefax messages littered with handwritten comments? It’s strange, but amusing, to see Yale repeat a meme that is almost as old as the Internet itself, namely that modern human beings using it must be inherently evil or ill–informed. And what’s the nature of these “mischaracterisations of expert perspectives”? Is it that the whole video was called propagandistic? If it’s ridden with political propaganda, is it not a political propaganda video? If such characteristics are unwanted, maybe Yale should think about not releasing political propaganda footage to YouTube? Nip it in the bud, eh. Easier than trying to control the response, when propagandising the planet.
«Carolyn Ruppel, PhD, who heads the gas hydrates research project for the United States Geological Survey, USGS, is among those featured in that video, along with other reputable scientists.»
Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: … Who admits on tape that she stopped working with the Arctic half a decade ago.
«But given constraints on how much information could be included in that single six-minute video, we provide here six brief educational videos – ranging from one minute to nearly five minutes – drawn from the Ruppel interview remarks not included in that initial video.»
Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: Artificial, self–imposed constraints. Peter Sinclair voluntarily made his monthly YouTube video that short, likely because he wanted to convey a simple, propagandistic message about Arctic methane: Nothing To See Here, Move Along! He wanted to “Keep It Simple, Stupid” for political propaganda effect, not out of respect for the scientific matter at hand. His narrative shows an almost crying female student who used to believe Arctic methane meltdown was kinda dangerous, but who now understands that the danger was “overblown”, because #endothermic. Because ice simply can’t melt on planet Earth because melting would require heat. It’s so stupid.
«These six segments provide authoritative background on the “methane time bomb” and why experts may not “lie awake at night” fretting about it.»
Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: Well, that would be nice, wouldn’t it. But they don’t. Please see my walk–through of the videos below. And thank you for providing the extra footage, revealing to me and everyone that the propagandistic contents and intents of the January video were exactly as bad as first assumed, if not worse.
Video Footage Walk–Through
For clarity, what human beings connected to the Internet are mostly worried about, the aforementioned Climate Element X, is methane hydrates in the shallow ESAS (0–50m water depth) in East Siberia.
#1
«[…] But it doesn’t mean there is hydrate everywhere in there. One of the things in terrestrial areas, is that gas hydrate tends to focus only in certain areas, it’s not this big, wide–spread or high–saturated deposit. So, one thing I think we generally have to be careful of, is talking about what the inventory of gas hydrate is to begin with. OK. So, even if the thawing’s happening, the amount there in the first place on these Arctic continental shelves, is not a huge amount. And it is not ubiquitous. And it is not necessarily even a thick deposit. So, that’s one of the things: The amount available to even emit methane is probably not nearly as large as some people are estimating.»
Carolyn Ruppel, Lead Scientist, USGS
Comment: Well, obviously, the worry is about the methane that’s there, and how fast that’s gonna thaw. If Ruppel disagrees with “some people” about the amounts, that’s a matter for scientific debate among experts. On Wikipedia, citing science reports, the only figure we find for subsea methane / methane hydrates in the ESAS is 1,400 Gt carbon. Ruppel admits these deposits are thawing, and the scientific consensus seems to be that the submerged permafrost is thawing by about a foot every year, across the ESAS shallow seas.
#2
«Barents Sea […] pockmarks […] on the sea floor […] methane releases […] But that doesn’t necessarily mean we need to panic about the amount of methane that’s coming out.»
Carolyn Ruppel, Lead Scientist, USGS
Comment: True, but the human beings connected to the Internet are panicking about current and future releases from the ESAS, not the Barents Sea. Giant, kilometer–wide pockmarks in the Barents sea floor only make the matter worse, not better.
that prob
ably the amount is not nearly as large as people might think it is,
#3
«[…] Again, it’s not ubiquitous. So, again, I’d argue if they don’t think about the vagaries of gas hydrates.»
Carolyn Ruppel, Lead Scientist, USGS
Comment: Again, obviously, the worry is about the methane that’s there, and how fast that’s gonna thaw. If Ruppel disagrees with “people” about the amounts, that’s a matter for scientific debate among experts. On Wikipedia, citing science reports, the only figure we find for subsea methane / methane hydrates in the ESAS is 1,400 Gt carbon. Ruppel herself admits these deposits are thawing, and the scientific consensus seems to be that the submerged permafrost is thawing by about a foot every year, across the ESAS shallow seas.
#4
Ruppel here explains that ocean waters are under-
saturated
with methane, meaning that for releases from waters more than 100 meters deep, methane tends to be absorbed in the water column before reaching the surface. “It’s not a freight train that this methane is going to wind up directly in the atmosphere.”
Bud Ward, Editor, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: Well, the worry, as mentioned, is methane hydrates in the shallow ESAS (0–50m water depth) in East Siberia. These human beings connected to the Internet are obviously less worried about other seas and deeper waters.
#5
Bud Ward, Editor, Yale Climate Connections
Ruppel here discusses what she calls a common “misconception” involving the risk of a “catastrophic trigger” of methane releases. The thermodynamic properties of methane hydrate render that fear “not a scientifically sound worry,” she says. “That is simply not how these deposits can function thermodynamically.” She explains that the reaction that releases methane is “endothermic.” The significance of that, she says, is that the methane absorbs heat from the surroundings, and the methane “keeps shutting itself down.”
Comment: Well, the video shows a dry, laboratory environment, with hydrate resting on a table at prolly sub–zero temperatures Celsius. In real life, ESAS sea floor permafrost thaws about a foot every year, and the above zero C wet environment (commonly known as ‘the ocean’) melting the hydrates won’t be shut down, even though the hydrate melt is endothermic. The physics is the same as for a glass of ice cubes being introduced to tap water: They will melt. The melting of ice cubes into liquid water is also endothermic (it requires heat transfer), that doesn’t stop them from melting. In fact, global warming and the collapse of the Cryosphere (or Frozen Earth) is all about adding heat and melting the ice. Duh!
#6
Here Ruppel points out that “methane seepage is not new … in
Bud Ward, Editor, Yale Climate Connections
Comment: Fine, it’s not new. But over the ESAS, the main worry
geophysics, the tools have changed quite a bit in the last decade … you can actually do this with your fish finder. Go out on a lake, turn your fish finder on, and you may find methane coming out. We have the tools to routinely image the water column, and that is why we are finding methane coming out everywhere.”
“It would be inappropriate for us to portray them as new, just started happening,” she advises.
here, you have a time–series of scientific measurements of methane releases from the seabed. The increase in volume is very significant. You should study the peer–reviewed scientific literature. I dunno, go on the Internet or something, to find that info. Stop worrying about human beings connected to the Internet who worry, and read up on the actual evidence, recorded in peer–reviewed scientific reports.
Posts
