It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Logarock
...and ice cores and tree rings and sea bed cores which go back much further in time. Or are we supposed to ignore those?
Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
That article was discussed in this thread. The fact that you can't recognize the knots twisted into the NASA report by deniers speaks volumes.
The fact that you call dissenting views "deniers" shows how you prefer to label others rather than respect the debate. Nice strawman Kali, love how you completely avoided both of my rebuttals and not a word said about the SIM theory or barycentric influence of the sun. Just because something has been discussed here on ATS does not qualify it as factual either.
It's obvious where you stand in the debate. As soon as you called other perspectives by a slanderous term, you lost the discussion and abandoned the debate for your biased view.
~Namaste
Every rise in CO2 and temperature in the past 400K years shows the opposite, and nobody has PROVEN that it is CO2?
We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
Utilising a recently developed proxy for regional Antarctic temperature, derived from five near-coastal ice cores and two ice core CO2 records with high dating precision, we show that the increase in CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature cannot be excluded.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, more potent than carbon dioxide unit per unit.[3] The concentration of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998, expressed as a mole fraction, was 1745 nmol/mol (parts per billion, ppb). By 2008, however, global methane levels, which had stayed mostly flat since 1998, had risen to 1800 nmol/mol.[4]
In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. Historically, methane concentrations in the world's atmosphere have ranged between 300 and 400 nmol/mol during glacial periods commonly known as ice ages, and between 600 to 700 nmol/mol during the warm interglacial periods. Recent research suggests that the Earth's oceans are a potentially important new source of Arctic methane.[43]
Methane is not toxic; however, it is extremely flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air.
As a gas it is flammable only over a narrow range of concentrations (5–15%) in air.
Originally posted by Rich Z
Is anyone else concerned about methane much more than CO2?
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, more potent than carbon dioxide unit per unit.[3] The concentration of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998, expressed as a mole fraction, was 1745 nmol/mol (parts per billion, ppb). By 2008, however, global methane levels, which had stayed mostly flat since 1998, had risen to 1800 nmol/mol.[4]
In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. Historically, methane concentrations in the world's atmosphere have ranged between 300 and 400 nmol/mol during glacial periods commonly known as ice ages, and between 600 to 700 nmol/mol during the warm interglacial periods. Recent research suggests that the Earth's oceans are a potentially important new source of Arctic methane.[43]
Methane is not toxic; however, it is extremely flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air.
As a gas it is flammable only over a narrow range of concentrations (5–15%) in air.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...
And when methane ignites, what is left remaining in the atmosphere?
Yeah, I know the situation is a LONG way off from getting to 5 percent atmospheric methane.. But still, if it begins to rapidly head in that direction, what is there that mankind could do to stop it?
No one seems to know exactly how much methane is locked up frozen that MIGHT be released.
Originally posted by greavsie1971
Do you realise just how massive a quantity 5% of the earths athmosphere is? It will take 100's of billions of years of bio matter degradation to produce these amounts.
Originally posted by greavsie1971
Michio Kaku? Come on. The same Michio Kaku that tells us we NEED to have a one world order. Dont believe a word he says. He has been compromised.