Comments on: NOAA: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane Rise Sharply in 2007

By: arabia

arabia — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:55:18 +0000

this helped with my report

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:42:05 +0000

TURN DOWN THE HEAT FOR A COOLER WORLD
As we turn off the internal combustion( HEAT engines) as the economy bites,the ice will stop melting. The methane flares will become less in Siberia as the world needs less oil. The ice should slowly start to reform. When the economy recovers and uses more heat,it will melt again.

Methane will oxidize to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,so why talk about it. Methane burns. We are not living in a reducing environment.

If we replace all the dirty,polluting carcinogenic oil compounds(benzene,toluene,methyl benzene, naphthalene and xylene incorporated into our gasoline to raise the octane rating) with solar panels we will all be living a healthier life. The unburnt hydrocarbons,from poor combustion and spills are being stored in our underground drinking water tables and we are drinking them.

Make more solar panels! Methane will always oxidize to carbon dioxide on our planet. The end result of burning methane(the so called green natural gas) is more carbon dioxide.

Watch the acid rain, which could attack the thousands of metres of limestone,marble and dolomite on our land. If this was ever released, we wold have a beautiful goddess,Venus on Earth. Carbonic,nitric and sulphuric acid levels should be monitored (These acids are formed when water combines with Carbon dioxide,nitrogen dioxide & nitrogen tri-oxide,sulphur dioxide and sulphur tri-oxide)

By: Oli

Oli — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:01:48 +0000

The half life of methane is not a ‘hazy’ subject and is most definately a real and attributable fact. The half life of atmospheric methane is just over 7 years and can be tested in any number of labratoies that use half life acceleration techniques.

By: litesong

litesong — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:36:18 +0000

Hi Alex…Quick, but evenhanded rebuttal of deniers!

In passing you mentioned the winter increase in Arctic sea ice extent. However, as of now, June 14, 2008, the 700,000 square kilometer lead the 2008 Arctic sea ice extent had over the 2007 Arctic sea ice extent has all melted away, & both years are tied! So the 2008 ice extent lead, that AGW deniers were crowing about & were so eager to tell the world of the vast ice ‘recovery’ of the Arctic….is 0 square kilometers now. So the race to the minimum arctic sea ice extent between 2007 & 2008 is on. Still, its hard to believe that the 2007 ice extent minimum will not remain intact, when one looks at the graph & sees the 2007 long, very steep slope as the 2007 melted so rapidly….but the 2007 ice wasn’t as thin as the 2008 ice either. So it’ll be fun to watch.

By: Alex J

Alex J — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:03:33 +0000

It’s the longer term trends and averages that count, not one-year records and inter-annual fluctuations (including a modest winter increase in Arctic sea ice extent). 1998 was exceptional due in part to a strong el niño, making it a convenient comparison point for deniers. Other years since have been pretty close. There are also several temperature records (including the satellite data corrected for stratospheric bias), the oceanic temperature profiles, and other lines on observational evidence. Even most deniers/delayers no longer argue against an overall warming trend.

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:58:14 +0000

Joe, 1998 = record, since then not records. What you report and what the data say atre Not equal. Cryosphere data refutes your statement regarding Arctic ice.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:11:50 +0000

Peter — not sure how you can keep asserting things that aren’t true. The entire globe has been achieving record temperatures, as I have been reporting over and over again.

That said, the stunning loss of the Arctic ice does mean that the top of the northern hemisphere is going to warm the most. The data trackers who best account for the Arctic (NASA GISS) not surprisingly show the greatest warming recently.

Joe

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:05:28 +0000

Joe, its isn’t warming up any where but FSU, how does your carbon forced model explain that? Where did all the energy go the last 9 years when the air and sea didn’t warm? Time to tune up the models to match more closely reality. The map (carbon forced -AGW models) aren’t the world as it is.
Seriously I’m interested in the freakish heat have in Siberia. Is it real or is it tweaked data? or just natural variation?
All Arctic ice levels are above the 1951-1981 average.
You could be the prophet who lead the pack of AGWers back to reality instead of one of thousands that went over the science cliff to irrational belief systems forever damaging their reputations for scientific integrity.
It is never to late to return to the bosom of reason.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:33:30 +0000

David is correct. Half-life is an inappropriate way to measure CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC uses the Bern Carbon Cycle Model. See Chapter 10 of the WG I report (Physical Basis) or http://www.climate.unibe.ch/ ~joos/ OUTGOING/ publications/ hooss01cd.pdf

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:06:13 +0000

“if negative global climate change continues”???
Where is this occurring? The Arctic? Australia? India? SW U.S.?