Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum As the Earth warms

the one problem i see with the calcualtion on the release of methane from siberia, is that it assumes all of it will be in methane. the only way that can happen is if it says wet 24 7 until the gass is release. if it dries out, the methane oixdies into co2. even with things as they are now. a large part of it is dry most of the year. only the lakes are staying wet and those will drain off as soon as the peat on the bottom decays enough to stop blocking the water. if it does not decay, there is no problem. if it does the water will drain, again, after a time, no problem.

another problems is that the higher the methane levels in the atmosphere, the more oxidation occurs there. lightning does not set off much, since there is so little. but let the concetration get up, and the storms will be come real boomers.

G'day Paul,

Your theory is very neat and seems to explain a number of things. The big problem is there is no evidence for it. There is no evidence at all to support the supposition that methane is the trigger for either interglacial/glaciation switches or the beginnings or ends of Ice Ages. If there was then that would be the predominant theory and would have been for much of the last century when reasons were actively sought. If you disagree, please point to data or research which conforms with your view.

Otherwise it would be an excellent theory. It actually closely parallels a theory that does fit the available evidence but for which the cause is not established. The theory goes that for whatever reason, the various mechanisms which keep the earth within the parameters of say a glaciation are upset. The balance is tipped, to use your words. Once this occurs, then warming starts and the snow and ice that covers large expanses of the ground start to melt earlier into the seasons and the extent of the meltback is further. Simply because of the loss of snow and ice, a huge drop in solar reflectivity from the earth's surface (albedo) occurs, and this leads to further warming. Thus, the snow and ice coverage at the end of the season comes later and does not extend as far south (this really is a mechanism only of the Northern Hemisphere within this Ice Age).

The next season comes around and the increased residual warmth means that it comes even earlier and the retreat extends much further. Depending on just how you view the evidence, it could be as little as three seasons before the acceleration is so great that the conditions are no longer a glaciation but the beginnings of an interglacial period.

Basically, the theory is the same as yours but without the need to introduce methane as a trigger. But what is the trigger? I honestly don't know and have never seen enough evidence to suggest excatly the mechanism. Seven out of ten times glaciations in this Ice Age start at the same time as there is a large increase in volcanic activity. There is strong evidence, based on the changes in temperatures over the last several hundred years being so exactly related to solar variations, that solar variations may be part or even the main reason for the trigger.

There are some differences however between your theory and the one I have just described. There is nothing to suggest that increased warming of the planet will result in increased volcanic activity. Volcanic activity may correspond with the return to glaciations more often than not but that would not explain the return without the increased volcanic activity or even if the volcanic activity increase is directly related to return to a glaciation as a cause. I understand volcanic activity varies in relation to solar activities and it could well be that a solar activity which might be the cause of the return to the glaciation also triggers the volcanic activity, the two only being related in the cause. As far as I know there just isn't the evidence to support the proposition that volcanic activity causes returns to glaciation aside from the inference which can be drawn because the two coincide more often than not.

There is strong evidence to suggest Ice Ages come and go because of the shifting of plate tectonics; distance from the sun; long term changes to solar radiation received by the earth. In all of those changes only once is there a significant methane event and that was 55 million years ago.

There is very strong evidence to suggest that the switch between glaciations and interglacial periods in the periods we can study (this end of this Ice Age) have at their core solar radiation changes.

I might state that the earth's climate tends to remain stable in either an interglacial or glacial period in that it does not constantly switch backwards and forwards between the two. But there is significant variation of temperatures within each of those states.

Your probably will not like my paper at all. The truth as I see it, includes the points that there is actually very little evidence to support the proposition that there is even any Global Warming and since it is a summary of my views, precision is not the way I would describe it. It is not meant to be a presentation of research, which really should have precision.

I can say as part of the process in arriving at just what form my research would take I was asked to review four research articles on global warming briefly. Out of the four I could not conclude that the data used in any of them was accurate or free from personal interpretation or manipulation to such a large extent that the reliability of the data, in my view, was unsatisfactory.

Until my research is concluded and published, the individual studies I am asked to review of course cannot be specified. However, as I have said to DA Morgan several times, I'm happy to look at any research paper released on global warming, and if the data can be accessed, comment on this forum about the veracity of the underlying data. That was taken up just once and all I had to do was point to the comments in the report itself concerning the reliability of the data to throw strongly into doubt the conclusions drawn.


Richard

what i have trouble with some times, is the fact that so many ppl believe the earth is so isolated from the suns influence. yes, if you asked them, they will acknowledge the influence earth has on the seasonal influence the sun has on our tempature. some will even acknowldge the effect it has on earthquakes and things, but it seems odd to me that few of the ppl that argue that man is the cause of global warming will acknowldge the amount of variation that occurs in the sun, or how much that variation will affect the earth. personally, im still learning about what all can affect the earths weather, and ive been reading for some time. how can they say without bothering to read it, how much (as an example) jupiter could be affecting us.

ric
I didnt think this up myself, I only put things together that others found.

if I count 5 nails laying on a table and call them 5 nails all I have done is count them.
but what of the table?
and what the table sits on?
and what supports the ground the table sits on?
what holds the nails on the table?
what holds the table on the ground?

question everything or you get it wrong...

I used to watch a tv show called connections which was very interesting to me and this may be the reason I try to put things together so much.

we really dont need to use any thing that burns and causes pollution to make energy there are many other ways around it.
but we do.

why do we?
because people want to profit from the fuels they have to sell or can aquire to sell.

I could completely stop using any form of currently used energy If I choose.
I could build a machine that generates energy from nothing.

why dont I?
maybe I have connected something thats more important at this time.

it may be that with such a machine the climate could be lowered however it would take a lot of energy from clean sources to combat the pollution we produce today.

it would provide a feasible method of controlling our climate by providing energy for the massive atmospheric control system we will need in the near future.

it really does sound extreme doesnt it.

it really is extreme.

why arent things like this in use today?

because people want to sell fuel...

...... I edited this ............

actually its not that people want to sell fuel.
its that people want to make money.
so if there can be a way found that would replace this money that these people make then they would imediately forget about selling the fuels and sell what replaced the fuels.
.....................................