User talk:Rktect/archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1

/archive 1

Contents

[edit] Rktect

Age 62 Registered since 1986 Interests include architectural proportions, green buildings, passive solar, photovoltaics, hydronics, AutoCad, construction law, common law, constitutional law, peak oil, global warming, building envelopes, design, bicycling, the ancient near east. Rktect 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a little link to the archive you created of this talk page. Without it nobody would know it's there. — Gareth Hughes 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proportions note

Thanks for the reply. I actually don’t know very much about the proportions subject. I was on that article as a reader and not an editor. I just saw some style/formatting issues so I thought I’d mention them to you. As for the other stuff, I saw that you were already having some difficulty with other editors and didn’t want you to get end up with more of that. I know with RfCs and Arbcom you can’t really “win” but you can lose. The best that can happen in a dispute is that they send you back to where you started from and of course the worst is some sort of ban. So I hate to see editors fighting it out when it won’t really get anything for anyone. Sometimes it is hard to compromise but sometimes it is also the best an editor can achieve around here. Were all here, I hope, to have fun and make lasting contributions to the articles. Right now it looks like your changes aren’t lasting and I can’t imagine that you’re having fun with all that’s going on. Good luck with everything.

[edit] Reverts

Please mark your reverts as such with (rv) in the edit comment; and please be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley 12:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GW

Re [1] and so on. You'll have noticed by now that you're being reverted. It might be a good idea to discuss this on the talk page before re-adding it (beware WP:3RR BTW).

There are several problems with your addition. Firstly, [2] is a poor source for what the IPCC says: since the IPCC is available on-line, it can be used to source itself. In fact the link looks like spam. Second it isn't true that T is rapidly increasing at both poles. Third your text appears to suggest that T is inc in the NH because of CO2 emissions in that hemi. Fourth the suggestion about SLR needs a source. Etc etc William M. Connolley 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a source for IPCC but for for above average warming in the Northern Hemispere. The IPCC has essentially the same graphic so if you prefer I will use theirs. T is increasing at a faster than average rate in the northern hemisphere not just because of CO2 emmissions but for all the reasons given in the article including methane releases in Siberia. SLT is referenced by the link to Overpeck and Weiss etc; etc; etc; I have moved it from the top to the bottom and otherwise attempted to address concerns about what where, but surely you agree that using average numbers which don't apply to where most people live is misleasding.Rktect 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
T is increasing at a faster than average rate in the northern hemisphere not just because of CO2 emmissions but for all the reasons given in the article including methane releases in Siberia. -wrong/misleading; as I say: discuss on t:GW not here William M. Connolley 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GW2

Hi Rktect! We seem to have started off on a less than optimal footing. Anyways, neither William nor Raymond nor I disagree substantially with the IPCC reports - on the contrary, we use them as one of the major sources for the article. We just seem to disagree with you in how to interpret them. --Stephan Schulz 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, five points.
1. Most of the IPCC research is cited as global average
2. Most of it dates from the mid nineties
3. The data from the nineties tends to be treated as linear, carying past trends forward
4. The recent data tends to be exponential modeling its increases at increasing rates of increase
5. The data from the Northern Hemisphere differs dramatically from the global average.Rktect 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GW 3

You clearly are very enthusiastic about putting your contributions into the GW article. However, much of what you write is wrong, or repeats what is there already, so is going to get reverted out again. Assuming that you don't want this to happen, perhaps you could say what concepts you want added to the article that aren't already there? For example, the bit about methane is already there The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.... If you want to add some stuff about the NH warming faster than the SH, then maybe thats a good idea too, as long as its done correctly (you have reaslised by now that its not because GHGs are higher there, haven't you?) William M. Connolley 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The data that is in the article now comes from the mid nineties, It still refers to average global levels rather than addressing the situation in the Northern Hemisphere. Compared to historic values for CH4 have increased 270% or thereabouts, thats from 2005 and its still increasing.
Global warming is due to human activities; in particular burning fossilo fuels which put Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the release of methane from a melting siberian tundra and the flora ad fauna employed in feeding an ever larger population. Thats magnified by the effects of warming such as less ice to reflect the suns rays back into space. The Northern Hemisphere is a special case and deserves some attentionRktect 00:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think the numbers in the article are out of date, there is nothing wrong with updating them. If you think that methane levels are substantially higher in the NH than SH then I think you're wrong; but if you can find a reliable ref that says otherwise I can be convinced. I hope you noticed that I added a para re the NH William M. Connolley 08:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your adding a paragraph. The sources I'm restricting myself to at the moment are the IPCC and its contributors like Overpeak and Weiss for more specific recent info. Generally the areas of the article I consider out of date are all references sourcing more than three years back.
If you want to you can think of it in terms of the cost of a gallon of gas, house prices, the stock market or people who think global warming is a real issue. The numbers in 1994 are exponentially different than the numbers today, even the numbers from 3 years back are exponentially different. They may drop, even drop dramatically for a short while, but overall the general trend is up and the reason is there are just more people to buy gas, houses, stocks, and the predictions of science.
Comparing studies from the mid nineties with what scientists are documenting today tends to have the same exponential differences as the data. Back then the studies were linear, tracking data back in time, now they are computor models and projections forward tending to show us in the cusp of exponential curves with a substantial amount of unexpected synergy.
Updating the numbers by adding a comment with an IPCC graph or chart to back it up shouldn't be controversial. Some editors seem to think all global warming research falls under the category of WPOR|SYN because its new and combines a lot of sources and doesn't always go where we went in the past or where they might expect us to go in the future, but there is consensus among scientists that the warming is caused by human activity.
The worst forms of human activity in terms of polluting the atmosphere are above average in the northern hemisphere. That activity causes the atmosphere to have above average concentrations of greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gasses are dramatically affected by burning fossil fuels and their emmisions of carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of methane come from increases in agriculture, with associated emmissions of methane from melting tundra in Siberia and the release from seabeds.
Its the synergy of everything taken all together that is killing usRktect 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Updating the numbers with good sources wouldn't be controversial. But you haven't been doing that. You've been adding large amounts of text that people are bound to object to. You still seem to think that NH GHG concs are higher than SH and this is wrong. ou've also written a lot above that is irrelevant to the point at hand. To return to one very specific point: if you think that the number for methane growth in the article is out of date, please replace it with a better more up to date number. Also I don't think copying this to the t:GW page was helpful, I urge you to remove it from there William M. Connolley 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that it won't be contraversial to replace the IPCC information and graphics that have been reverted.
No: re-inserting your reverted material will be unacceptable. I'm not quite sure why its so hard for you to understand me. You have asserted that the current GW page contains outdated numbers for methane. Please, simply update those numbers: don't add new graphs, just replace the numbers, if you think you can find better ones William M. Connolley 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"They may drop, even drop dramatically for a short while, but overall the general trend is up and the reason is there are just more people to buy gas, houses, stocks, and the predictions of science" Sorry to introduce but I thought this theory was worth being addressed. The reason why house and stock prices are up is not because there are more people to buy them (there are also more people to produce them). That would mostly be because the gold standard has been abandonned, the articial expansion of the state-controlled money supply, and banks being allowed to lend money that is not theirs (our deposits), i.e. fractional-reserve banking. --Childhood's End 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GHG Graphics

I evidenced this with IPCC graphics of temperature which they link to GHG concentrations. Can you show me where they have a graphic showing the southern hemisphere has equal or higher concentrations? I looked at your link to poles and found it links to the Polish people.
That GHGs are well mixed is obvious. What makes you think otherwise? William M. Connolley 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Egyptian math

Thank you for remembering my 10 year old comment. Today I still see the fundamental theorem of arithmetic in use by 2000 BCE, as cited 10 years ago, but with a twist. I read Sigler's Latin to English version of Fibonacci's Liber Abaci in Jan 2007. It changed my view of 2/pq series created by Ahmes in 1650 BCE and another writing in the Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll, near to 2,000 BCE. Fibonacci and Ahmes used multipes, specifically (p + 1)/(p + 1). For example to convert 2/21 to an Egyptian fraction series, factor into 1/p x 1/q, or 1/3 x 1/7 and write as a (p + 1) multiple,

or,

2/21 x (3 + 1)/(3+ 1) = 2/21 x 4/4 = 8/84 = (6 + 2)/84 = 1/14 + 1/42, as Ahmes wrote as an optimal series.

The EMLR student was allowed to select any multiple, testing the utility of multiples to solve 1/p and 1/pq conversions, and later learned of the optimal (p + 1) method, used continuously for 2,900 years, if not longer, as the Liber Abaci certifies.

Concerning my great grandfather Archibald, my brother, 10 years older than I, asked that I write up Archibald's life in a bio format, one that a few Wikipedia readers have been discussing, and disagreeing with a few well documented family facts. Sorry for the family distractions, the project is nearing completion. I can now return full time to my first love, the secular world and math history, decoded by cryptanalytics, my Army job. Best Regards, Milogardner

[edit] GW 4, and WP:3RR

Hi Rktect! I'm convinced of your good intentions. However, the global warming articles have reached a high level of quality and a decent level of stability. From your edit comments, I get the impression that you are not yet very well acquainted with all the articles and WP:SUMMARY style. Please take the time to familiarize yourself. Much of want you want is already covered. For what is missing, dumping large numbers of (out-of-date) external links with (sorry to say so) sometimes misleading captions is not a good way to achieve this. Please be also aware about WP:3RR, the Wikipedia policy that forbids more than 3 reverts to any article by one user in any 24 hour stretch. Reverts are rather widely defined for this policy. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 11:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, Lets start with what we agree on. I'm convinced of your good intentions also. However the global warming articles don't impress me much. I'f like to see some coverage of Overpeck and Weiss, maybe a recent update on the Greenland melting that shows how much more rapid it is than expected, there is nothing on the release of methane from perma frost, the effects of reduced oxygen content due to the dying of the ocean, the [consequences] that are unavoidable now, the cost of remediation to prevent 80 percent of the worlds cities and billions of people from slipping below the waves. All of that is current well reported IPCC science missing from the article. In its place are attempts to balance the discussion with theories about global cooling coming from petroleum engineers and people who don't disguise the fact that they are believers in the status quo going on forever. I'm putting up links to the presentation graphics from the latest IPCC reports. Why aren't those graphics already in the article? Are they outdated by any more recent IPCC graphics? Not on the IPCC pages. Whats misleading about the captions? I have yet to make a revert. So far as I know placing references is encouraged, removing them without discussion is not.

let me finish by pointing out that if you cared about global warming you wouldn't want the articles on a subject that is very much current events and changing constantly to remain stable but rather to be leading edge.Rktect 12:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about how up to date the graphics are, but simply dumping external image links int see also sections of various articles amounts to WP:SPAM. Adding appropriate content to an article referencing an individual image would make more sense - but also more work. Vsmith 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To give some concrete examples of what I'm referring to:

[edit] exponential increase

  • You link to this figure with the caption "exponential nature of the increase". That figure does not mention exponential increase, i.e. that caption would be an example of original research. Moreover, I do no see any exponential increase in that figure - it's a long, slow decline, followed by a wiggly transition zone, and ending in what looks like (relatively fast) linear growth, or, in some cases even sublinear growths.
--Stephan Schulz 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats a graph which shows a rate of increase increasing at an increasing rate, thats one way to define an exponential curve. It stays the same for a millenia in the last century of which it enters a cusp then in the last half century starts heading for infinity quick. How you get a long slow decline out of that I have no idea, maybe the same way you get population growth as a long slow decline. It took from the beginings of homo sapiens as a species untill the Spanish American War for population to reach a billion people. In the last Century its increased 5 billion more. That isn't to say the curve doesn't have variation from its trend line. World population has increased so rapidly because of the industrial revolution and cheap energy, yet, after the industrial revolution and despite the predictions of Malthus it stayed level and during the Civil War it declined.
Between 1850 and 1900 World Population increased rapidly by 300%. Over the next half century during the world wars it went back to a period of slow growth. In my lifetime population has more than tripled, increasing 350%. Most of the increase is in the third world where there is high infant mortality and disease and yet still a huge increase. The increase in population has synergystic effects in terms of the land used for agriculture, manufacture, transportation, housing and global warming. Don't be an Egyptian.Rktect 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, this is not "one way to define an exponential curve". An exponential curve follows the equation f(x)=bx (possibly with some constants thrown in). Any 4th degree polynomial has "a rate of increase increasing at an increasing rate" on the positive branch. But the diagram in question shows nothing of that form, anyways. It shows a slow decline of about 0.15 degrees from 1000 CE to 1900 CE, then a wiggly transition till about 1970, and then a smooth increase till about 2100. For nearly all of the projections the increase after 2010 or so seems to be linear, and for several it becomes sublinear around 2080 or so.
Not all rapid growth is exponential in character, and misuse of the word is, unfortunately, rather frequent. I do not deny that population growth is a serious problem and leads to potentially devastating pressure on ecosystems. But that problem is not solved by misusing terminology. It also is only indirectly coupled with global warming. --Stephan Schulz 13:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Right after you say that is not one way to define an exponential curve you show that is one way. The diagram in question shows exactly that. The rate of increase is not linear as it would be if it were steady and its not decreasing therefore it is increasing. Its not increasing at a steady rate of increase nor is it decreasing so its increasing at an increasing rate of increase. Any curve on a graph can be defined as exponential albeit the exponent is not always positive. Global warming is not steady because of the double interacting causuality where for example temperature rise releases methane, methane increases temperature which releases more methane. I also note that where you claim methane is mentioned in the article under feedback, the graphics I was adding were mentioned in neither location. If the data is agreed to be there c 2005 why are others here denying the data exists?Rktect 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Let me reiterate the core point: An exponential curve follows the equation f(x)=bx (possibly with some constants thrown in). If it does not, it is not an exponential curve. An exponential curve does have the property that its derivative is an exponential curve as well. None of the curves on the diagram you link to is an exponential curve, not even if you allow for a certain degree of noise. --Stephan Schulz 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
exponential curves even if you have a lot of noise you can still generally construct a trend line.Rktect 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In particular see the formula at [3], which is the same one I gave you (with the particular base b=e and hence the property that f'=f). An yes, you can get an optimal fit to a set of data for many different function prototypes. But "optimal" does not mean "good" or even "adequate". --Stephan Schulz 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The important thing about curves is that only in pure mathematics do they go to infinity, in science or social science they inevitably break down, so the real question isn't are they increasing exponentially, they are, the real question is how long have we got. Take rising sealevels as an example. Overpeck and Weiss have shown how, if and when we get each meter of rise, the land will be affected. By the time you get to six meters about 80% of the worlds cities are flooded worse than New Orleans. We need about 2 degrees C temperature rise to get there. I'm looking at charts of the possible rise in the Northern Hemisphere and we could see 6 degrees of temperature rise over the next century. Maybe more and maybe faster. You can't put up levees for the whole coast line of the United States. You can't evacuate the cities and rebuild them somewhere else. Meanwhile we have reached Peak Oil. We don't have the energy to do all the mediation proposed or to create the other resources we need such as widescale mass transit and alternative energy. It took over two centuries to build the infrstructure we have now and we are talking about having to replace it in two decades. I'm an architect. I know what it costs to do a green building, more than most peoples houses cost to begin with. Without cheap energy its going to be hard to maintain transportation and communications let alone industries like trucking and freight. The Global Warming article doesn't even skim the issue of whats possible in terms of mediation and what probably isn't going to be eneough. Where did all the elctric cars go, why are all the bees dying, that sort of stuffRktect 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"The real question isn't are they increasing exponentially, they are, the real question is how long have we got."
Merely asserting an exponential curve does not prove its existence. And, once again, espousing apocalyptic scenarios does not bolster an argument.

[edit] Sea Level Rise

See here: The IPCC is not talking about a six-meter rise in sea level, calling only for -0.17 to 0.77 meters by the year 2100. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the current IPCC range is 18–59cm, and to be fair, that is without the potential effect of changes in ice sheet dynamics that according to the IPCC cannot currently be quantified with any degree of reliability. James Hansen thinks that 5m in the next century is possible (but not certain). [4] --Stephan Schulz 15:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the IPCC would predict a lower upper bound now than before. In any case, the article sea level rise needs an update with this new information, but in all fairness I'd say it would be best to go with the IPCC range over the other prediction. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a widely held misunderstanding. The 2001 numbers included ice sheet behavior. Now the IPCC has decided that the complexity of the problem had been underestimated and factored out this aspect. Thus the 2007 IPCC range is (18–59cm)+X, and X is unknown. IIRC, the range for the other effects is marginally larger than before. WP:NPOV requires us to report all significant viewpoints, and Hansen's certainly is one. But even Hansen does not make hard predictions, he just warns against the possibility. --Stephan Schulz 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As long as the mention of Hansen does not violate WP:UNDUE or exaggerate his conclusions, there is no problem. But the table in sea level rise still cites the 2001 IPCC report, and needs to be changed. Direct link in the 2007 report? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The article you reference talks about projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100. This is 2007. In the last decade the scientists have been suprised to see the warming is occuring much faster than expected and consequently the sea level rise is projected to be faster also. The warming emmissions concentrations and sea level rise are all linked. Sea level rise tends to drown the reefs and kill the plankton that make oxygen. The worst case varies according to how much mediation you take into account. There hasn't been much so far. Consequently the scenarios are all over the place with the worse case so far 6 degrees C by 2100, and 2 degrees before 2050. Siberia is already reporting 3 degrees C over the last 40 years. What does that do to sea level rise? Its a direct relationship as far as coefficient of expansion. Warmer oceans are also disruptive to sea life. Ocean and atmospheric temperature warming relative to land surface temperaturees are a prime factor in extreme storms, subsidence, isostatic rebound and increased likelyhood of earthquakes are also related.
warming
sea level rise 1990
temperature 6 degrees C
Overpeck & Weiss
abrupt climate change
The mid-depth warming displayed by the model could destabilize large volumes of methane hydrate in the depth range of 1,000-2,000m over much of the world ocean. The THC switch seen in the model of Bice and Marotzke (2001) and the inferred subsequent methane release are an abrupt climate change, according to the definition given in Chapter 1.
comparative scenariosRktect 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
EPA projections for ssea level rise
Estimates for the year 2025 range from five to fifteen inches above current sea level, while estimates of the rise by 2100 range from two to seven feet. Although the timing and magnitude of future sea level rise is uncertain, there is an emerging scientific consensus that a significant rise is likely.
The EPA is responsible for many of the most conservative of the present IPCC scenarios
IPCC 1990 range is 170 to 770 mm (2.5') by 2100.
IPCC 1992 range is 1 to 2 mm yr 100 to 200 mm by 2100. cited below wikipedia article on SLR
TOPEX 1992 range is 3 mm yr 300 mm by 2100. cited below wikipedia article on SLR
IPCC 2000 range is 180 to 590 mm (1.9') by 2100
IPCC 2000 range is 180 to 590 mm + (1.9'+) by 2100
Overpeck 2005 range is 1,000 mm + (3') x 2100
James Hansen range is 5,000 mm (16.4') by 2100
EPA 2007 range is 127 - 381 mm (1 remen) by 2025. Given stormm surge thats enough to flood every major city on the east coast within 18 years, take out the barrier islands and destroy most fisheries.
glaciers and ice caps add 500 mm.
Greenland ice sheet add 7,200 mm
Antarctic ice sheet add 61,100 mm
West Antarctic Ice Sheet 5,000-6,000 mmRktect 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The EPA paper is not from 2007, but from 1988. You seem to have mixed up the various IPCC ranges. Hansen does not give a range, but an example calculation with an admittedly arbitrary choice of a constant. And the behavior of the ice sheets is largely unknown - Hansen is one of the most aggressive proponents of fast disintegration of large ice sheets, and he again only warns against the possibility. And the 6 degree warming (in fact 6.4 degrees) by 2100 is the most extreme IPCC scenario, assuming both extreme emissions and high climate sensitivity. --Stephan Schulz 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The rate of increase in the higher predictions is increasing. I agree that assumes we do nothing. We fail to turn out the lights when we leave a room, particularly in office buildings, we don't unplug our cellphone chargers and people who telecommute continue to have both computer and TV on all day. We still drive to work rather than bicycle, still transport lettuce accross the country by truck. Add your own list beyod this point. Many continue to be against global warming on grounds its simply unbelievable, its projections are too extreme, so the IPCC tends to embrace very conservative projections and then very gradually adjust the numbers upward after the science has been around a few decades. The EPA and other US science organizations looking to the present administration for funding are censored by recent regent U ttypes on what they can say.
Sea level rise is an increase in sea level. Multiple complex factors may influence such changes.

Sea level has risen around 130 metres (400 feet) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1] Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise about 3 mm/yr.[2] The IPCC notes, however, "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." [2]

Sea level rise can be a product of global warming through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans warm, and melting of ice over land. Global warming is predicted to cause significant rises in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century.Rktect 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methane

I added some recent observations to the T:GW talk page. Perceptions of the severity of the problem among scientists are evolving as they realize that as the north polar ice and permafrost melt they are releasing huge amounts of methane which increases the temperature rapidly causing more melting and the total reserve of methane located there is huge.

tipping point ..... It is feared that Siberia's thawing lake region, which comprises 90 percent of the Russian permafrost zone, will release methane into the atmosphere at a rate that will overwhelm human actions to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.

As the permafrost thaws as a result of global warming caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, large quantities of methane are released. When methane gets out it causes more warming in a vicious cycle, and the release of even more methane, and so it goes on. Scientists refer to this as a positive feedback loop.

Chris Field, director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, says "that's the thing that is scary about this whole thing. There are lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off."

Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University describes permafrost melting as an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible". He says the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt in the last three or four years.

Larry Smith of the University of California Los Angeles, has estimated that the western Siberian bog alone contains 70 billion tonnes of methane, which is 25 percent of all methane stored on the land surface worldwide.

Siberia has warmed faster than anywhere else on Earth - average temperatures have increased 3°C in the last 40 years.

I misunderstood you about where to have the conversation. I thought you informed me it should all take place on T:GW. I'll remove your comment that I just placed thereRktect 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it gets confusing. In my view, what you are saying is so muddled it really needs to be sorted out somewhere quiet like here William M. Connolley 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotations without source area bad idea. Methane concs have been stable for the last 5 years William M. Connolley 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Its all sourced see T:GWRktect 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Methane has indeed increased fig 1 but as that same source says Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period.; or [5]. By 2005 methane growth rates have declined to near zero [6] so I don't see much role for vast releases from peat bogs at present. There is an interhemispheric difference of about 8%: [7] and its graph (ah, but you knew that, because you've seen [8]. The 8% difference isn't enough to cause much of a radiative effect, though) William M. Connolley 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
At your first source see page 11. As to your total emmissions being nearly constant, the graphs show the rate of increase increasing at an increasing rate. Methane emmisssios have gone from stable for several million years at under 700 ppm to 1750 ppm in forty years.
methane releasesRktect 23:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
YOu seem to have problems staying on track. P11 is about global T inc, not methane. Current levels of atmospheric methane at *not* increasing: as I've said, and provided a link just above, they have been "stable" for the past 5 years. That they have increased from 700-ish pre-ind to 1750-ish now is not in dispute. Far from "the rate of increase increasing at an increasing rate", they are stable or perhaps slightly negative: [9] again. That is atmos conc not emissions, but its atmos concs that matter for the forcing. Your terranature link is hot on froth but not a good scientific source; you're far better off with IPCC. And please note that terranature says Vladimir Romanovsky, who is geophysics professor at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, said the big methane or carbon dioxide release hasn't started yet so even that contradicts your claims that these things are currently big sources William M. Connolley 11:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Page 11 demonstrates that there is a substantive difference in warming between hemispheres. It touches on other issues as well. Temperature at the surface of land is hotter than temperature over the surface of water. Its also not just the Urban areas in North America, Europe and Asia, that are hot, Siberia, Alaska and Scandinavia are hot also, the artic ice is melting away creating a northwest passage that the oil companies in the artic can use to ship their oil east as well as west....how come? Factor in the amount of methane stored in the permafrost that is melting and you realise that the article is referencing what statasticians call a double interacting causuality. Warming causing metane to melt out, methane raises temperature, more temperature releases more methane faster, the temperature increases at an increasing rate of increase. Yes, the big increase hasn't even started... yet... But already the temperature in Siberia has risen 4 degrees over the last forty years. That doesn't mean it isn't a big source now, it just means that compared to the effect it will have in the next 40 years, 4 degrees will be as nothing. Rktect 14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Methane 2

You write: "Methane has 25 times the effect of CO2 but remains in the atmosphere for shorter periods". That is a gross oversimplification. The "effect" depends on the time frame under consideration. The IPCC uses the global warming potential to characterize the warming effect of various gases. This depends on the time frame under consideration. Methane has a GWP of about 23 (I suspect your 25 is just rounded up a bit) for the 100 year time frame, but a GWP of 62 over a 20 year horizon. There is no "but" that at all, but rather a "because". Per molecule, methane is a lot worse than CO2, but each molecule has a shorter lifetime. --Stephan Schulz 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I could go into more detail... The point was simply that if methane release wasn't increasing rapidly or was decreasing it would dissapate rather than increasing its concentration so rapidly. I don't know when someone last checked the relative balance of the various gases but if oxygen production is on the decrease and GHG's on the increase, either the atmosphere gets denser creating the so called greenhouse effect or the oxygen gets replaced. The hundred year time frame is entirely arbitrary. There are also synergystic effects much attention is payed to atmosphere but the oceans are warming as well...Rktect 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
er... increasing density = greenhouse effect?? Not quite. Adding CO2 increases air density as CO2 is a more massive moecule, but adding CH4 decreases density as it is a lower mass molecule than the average of air. And ... is O2 production decreasing? Vsmith 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
CH4 increases warming faster but also dissapates faster, CO2 maintains whatever CH4 acheives, The Oxygen is decreasing because the Oceans and Forests which produce it are dying, both may just be gone by 2050. Much of the worlds vegetation is dependent upon snow melt and glaciers. Once those are gone we become a desert world, if we aren't already. In addition the are the plauges and pestilence caused by the changing climate making the world safe for oportunistic viruses.Rktect 14:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any source that shows that atmospheric Oxygen is decreasing? Preferably scientific sources? Neither oceans nor plants produce Oxygen ex nihilo. Plants (including green algae in the oceans) break up CO2 using photosynthesis, giving O2 and more plants. These plants eventually decompose and consume the oxygen again (or they get covered up with sentiments, creating fossil fuels for a new billionium ;-). It's a natural cycle. We intervene primarily by releasing fossil fuel back into circulation. The oceans are in no risk of "dying", at worst their ecosystem is restructured in a way that makes them very useless for us. And much of this is very speculative. For realistic scenarios and good sources, check the IPCC Workgroup II reports. --Stephan Schulz 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
phytoplankton produce oxygen
phytoplankton declining
phytoplankton declining
The Oceans are dying for a lot of reasons and none of it is news. Starfish are eating the coral on the barrier reefs because we dumped too much fertilizer into the rivers, which flow into the ocean and thence to the reefs. That goes back to the forties. The oceans are dying from overfishing, the oceans are dying from temperature changes. Fish are dying from sewage and garbage being ejected ever farther out to sea, from military operations and sonar, and you already know all this; I put the sources on the global warming page.
Phytoplankton produce oxygen as part of their growth cycle. the phytoplankton abundance in the upper oceanic layer is decreasing.
phytoplankton obtains most of its carbon dioxide from the oceans, not the atmosphere...."Pretty much all of the carbon dioxide taken up by phytoplankton comes from deep down in the ocean, just like nutrients, where bacteria and other organisms have produced it by respiring the organic matter that sank from the surface

regarding the concentration of oxygen in the water (a critical thing for fish), it has been noted that levels are dropping in some places (e.g. the deeper water in the Gulf of St. Lawrence). This is suspected to be a factor in the failure of the cod to “recover,” since apparently cod eggs are very sensitive to oxygen levels and the current level seems to be approaching the range where they cannot live and hatch. That is scary, but it gets worse...If the phytoplankton in the ocean were depleted, and their CO2-O2 gas exchanging ability was thereby decreased, a rising level of CO2 and declining level of O2 would be expected in the atmosphere. This exactly what has happened, and it has been very well documented. Rising CO2 levels are generally accepted to be the cause of “global warming.” Most people “know” this fact. But do they know that the steady upward trend in carbon dioxide levels in the air started centuries before the invention of the internal combustion engine? This means that the whole problem cannot be blamed on “burning fossil fuels.” Major amounts of FISHING were done in the centuries before the industrial revolution.

Rktect 19:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please clean up...

Your last edit seems to have duplicated parts of the article, and shifted other parts around. Before I answer further, please clean it up. Feel free to remove this notice once done. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments are coming faster than expected so I am attempting to categorize them by topic. When one topic becomes too long to scroll it seems reasonable to start another subsection

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Egyptian circle.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Egyptian circle.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)