John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
raylopez99 writes

Only Roger can spin an article that essentially throws cold water onto
the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis into one that supports it.

Exactly which bit threw cold water on it ?

Welcome to sci.environment. Those who frequent this newsgroup know that
Mr. Lopez has chosen the non-sequitur as his favored rhetorical device.

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
Only Roger can spin an article that essentially throws cold water onto
the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis into one that supports it.
I suppose Roger wants us to believe the putative "30%" man-made gg
component is responsible for the increased water vapour, but in fact
the increase could be due to rising temperatures that have nothing to
do with manmade GG. Notwithstanding what a FORTRAN 77 computer
simulation shows.

"Further research is needed on the AGW hypothesis before I will have a
clue".

I agree Ray, get started toot sweet.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...
In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes

Presumably any increase in temperature will result in some clathrate
decomposition ?

Although there is the potential for released methane to contribute to a
runaway effect, it's not a simple "hydrates will be released" or not
thing is it ?

Don't know :-(

And I am not sure anyone else does.

I'm pretty sure that physical chemists can tell you about the
thermodynamics of clathrate formation, and if they can tell you, it can
be modelled.

No, the idea of methane clathrate is still pretty new, and exactly how
they behave is not well known.

Moreover, their release is probably dependent on pressure and temperature.
That means that one needs to know not only how fast global temperature
will rise, and how that will affect sea temperatures at the depths of
clathrates, but we also need to how fast sea levels will rise in order to
know the pressures at the depths of clathrates.

It is not the sort of thing you want to
talk about. You could be labelled as a crackpot!

Don't see why...

When you predict that the end of the world (as we know it) is coming
then you are labelled as a crackpot (or a Chicken Little)-!

Cheers, Alastair.

In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes

I'm pretty sure that physical chemists can tell you about the
thermodynamics of clathrate formation, and if they can tell you, it can
be modelled.

No, the idea of methane clathrate is still pretty new, and exactly how
they behave is not well known.

Well, they were certainly something we were taught about in the early
80s, and it's not as if I was the most attentive of students ! They
were regarded as a bit funky, but the temperatures and pressures at
which they formed were known, and in the intervening 20++ years I
imagine a few more experiments have been done on them, especially given
their importance to climate research.

New ?? I don't think so !


Moreover, their release is probably dependent on pressure and temperature.

Yes.


That means that one needs to know not only how fast global temperature
will rise, and how that will affect sea temperatures at the depths of
clathrates, but we also need to how fast sea levels will rise in order to
know the pressures at the depths of clathrates.

Agreed, but again, none of this stuff is new to modelling !


It is not the sort of thing you want to
talk about. You could be labelled as a crackpot!

Don't see why...

When you predict that the end of the world (as we know it) is coming
then you are labelled as a crackpot (or a Chicken Little)-!

Which is fine until the sky falls !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...
In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes


When you predict that the end of the world (as we know it) is coming
then you are labelled as a crackpot (or a Chicken Little)-!

Which is fine until the sky falls !

I first heard about methane clathrates was about five years ago, and
within that period it has been suggested that they were the cause of
both the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum, and the Permian Triassic
mass extinction.

But I don't think the sky is falling. It is more like great balls of fire!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Peter Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:23:21 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote :


It sounds as though you are following this thread on the
alt.global-warming or uk.environment newsgroups which I agree
should not avoid the politics. I am following it on sci.environment
where a few professional scientists post stuff worth reading too!
This probably applies even more to sci.geo.meteorology but
you do get even more dross in along with the pearls in these
big groups.

Thanks for that and for the other info too, Alistair.
Most interesting.

I've added sci.environment to my subscribed list and, if it looks as
good as you say, I may just keep that and drop this one (alt.global
warming).

That's what I have done.

The "marked read" problem is proving very elusive to solve: only some
posts are being marked read, not all. None of Rogers get marked read
before reading. :-)

I have to add the quote marks by hand onto your posts. I wonder if the
marks in my replies are telling your news reader that the message is
read. Roger does not quote.

And Campbell is not one of our most admired ministers, he tends to
waver in the breeze a bit. I still tend to believe, despite all the
doom and gloom alt.global warming postings, that the Kyoto Accords are
largely a waste of time, effort and money that would be better spent
elsewhere, and that our technology initiatives with China & the US
show some promise of providing better bang for the buck in eventually
solving (or at least alleviating) the climate problems, whether it be
the current global warming or a possible future ice age.

The technology initiatives are just a fig leaf to get George W.Bush and
John Howard out of signing up to Kyoto. They are cheaoer and so they
will achieve even less than Kyoto, which was only a small first step
and was not designed to solve anything. It was in effect a pilot study,
with the main program, which was to have included India and China
being negotiated after. However, it is too late now. We are all doomed!

Trenberth, an Australian and senior member of the IPCC has broken
ranks and implied that global warming made the hurricane Katrina
worse. See;
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/d...nTrenberth.pdf
So if global warming is now showing its ugly face, how bad will it be
by the time we mitigate it by cutting emissions, or adapt to it by
introducing new technology initiatives? Both techniques are needed
but neither has yet been started!

Cheers, Alastair.

In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes
"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...
In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes

When you predict that the end of the world (as we know it) is coming
then you are labelled as a crackpot (or a Chicken Little)-!

Which is fine until the sky falls !

I first heard about methane clathrates was about five years ago,

You should have hung out with more chemists !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Alastair McDonald wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
Only Roger can spin an article that essentially throws cold water onto
the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis into one that supports it.
I suppose Roger wants us to believe the putative "30%" man-made gg
component is responsible for the increased water vapour, but in fact
the increase could be due to rising temperatures that have nothing to
do with manmade GG. Notwithstanding what a FORTRAN 77 computer
simulation shows.

"Further research is needed on the AGW hypothesis".

Yes further research is needed urgently on how much more water vapour
will be produced by the increase in carbon dioxide. Will it be enough to
warm the planet to the extent that the methane hydrates will be released?

Cheers, Alastair.

Based on the consensus you are right Alastair, but keep in mind that
30% of the temperature increase is due to non-manmade causes, says the
IPCC. So if that 30% goes to 50%, then it's fifty-fifty nature vs.
manmade.

As for methane hydrates, if they somehow rise from the bottom of the
sea to outgas at the surface, then it's curtains for us, regardless of
global warming. Same if a rogue meteor strikes the earth. Or a
mega-volcano. Or a global pandemic that's not curable. Or "grey goo
nanotech". Standard Halloween Science Scare Stories. Life will find a
way.

RL

In message JgScf.559137$xm3.467959@attbi_s21, Raymond Arritt
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
raylopez99 writes

Only Roger can spin an article that essentially throws cold water onto
the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis into one that supports it.

Exactly which bit threw cold water on it ?

Welcome to sci.environment. Those who frequent this newsgroup know that
Mr. Lopez has chosen the non-sequitur as his favored rhetorical device.

I'm reading this in uk.environment - and yes, Lopez does seem a
bit 'off beam' and hostile.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...


Based on the consensus you are right Alastair, but keep in mind that
30% of the temperature increase is due to non-manmade causes, says the
IPCC. So if that 30% goes to 50%, then it's fifty-fifty nature vs.
manmade.

The IPCC in fact say that up to 30% of the warming SO FAR was due to
natural causes. As AGW increases that figure will fall, not rise.

As for methane hydrates, if they somehow rise from the bottom of the
sea to outgas at the surface, then it's curtains for us, regardless of
global warming. Same if a rogue meteor strikes the earth. Or a
mega-volcano. Or a global pandemic that's not curable. Or "grey goo
nanotech".

I know less about "grey goo" nanotech than I do about methane
clathrates, however I would like to point out that we are trying to
prevent the bird flu global pandemic, and we are monitoring
the Yellowstone mega-volcano. We are scanning the skies for rogue
meteors with plans to shoot them down, but we are doing nothing about
global warming because it would affect the business interests of the
president of the USA.

Standard Halloween Science Scare Stories. Life will find a way.

Yes, life Ray, but not as we know it.

Cheers, Alastair.