Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 15-05-2019, 08:52   #286
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
The alternative to calling you and your buddies Climate Change Deniers is to call you scientific ignoramuses. Here is a summary from the first study that Newhaul posted:


From this summary I conclude that methane emissions from oil and gas production is not increasing at a comparable rate to the production itself. (Hallelujah! That's great news.)

Conclusion ii) suggests that there still is some increase in the rate of methane emissions. (not so good)

Conclusion iii) suggests that previous researcher's errors stemmed from (apparently??) measuring ethane emissions (which have been increasing dramatically) rather than methane emissions directly (which haven't increased nearly so much), and assuming that the rate of methane emissions must follow the rate of ethane emissions.

Nowhere that I've read do the researchers say that methane emissions from gas and oil production are zero, or that current methane emissions are harmless, or that they are not making significant contributions to greenhouse gas accumulations, which is what you and Newhaul seem to be implying.

Here is the first paragraph from Newhaul's article:
A study by a team of researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory has found that methane emissions from oil and natural gas production in the United States may not be rising as quickly as had been feared.
Note that the article is basically in agreement with the study. Methane emissions are not increasing as quickly as feared. No mention of whether current emission levels are benign or not.

With your illogical blinders firmly in place you now felt justified in saying all alarms over methane emissions are unwarranted, and you even went further in suggesting that those who have raised concerns about methane emission are not being truthful -- which is a polite way of calling them liars. So, once again, you piously call for mutual respect and a toning down of provocative language, but then turn around and "shovel" out a load of manure.
It turns out that this is about as truthful as the alarmism SailOar has been shoveling out about methane over the past 10 years of natural gas production.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now let's move on to Newhaul's illogical post regarding methane release from Arctic Lakes. The first thing Newhaul said was:
except that the study is not correct the arctic is not warming any faster than any other place on the plane.... [referring to my article on methane releases from Arctic Thermokarst lakes]
From the first sentence of the first paragraph of Newhaul's first link:
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet.
Duh...

Further down in the scientific journal article we find that it is difficult doing research on the literally millions of mostly inaccessible arctic lakes:
getting to some logistically very difficult places
So they chose to sample 20 larger lakes (large enough to land float planes in) in just one specific location, Yukon River Flats.
The researchers visited 20 lakes several times over the course of a year in the Yukon Flats
and
the research team flew by floatplane from Fairbanks, Alaska, to a remote location in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge
From their study they found that:
the researchers found that nearly every lake they tested showed no sign of ancient carbon from permafrost, and much less production of carbon dioxide than expected.
However--
the research team saw evidence that many of the lakes were more balanced in production and uptake of carbon dioxide than lakes in other regions. Consequently, the lakes were a smaller source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than is observed in other parts of the world.

"The implications are that not all lakes are hot spots for releasing carbon from land," Butman said. "But we don't yet know how these particular landscapes will change in a warmer climate, since this is the first time they've been studied."
So the researchers admit that their sample size is small (20 lakes), are from just one location (Yukon flats) and are not necessarily typical of all arctic lakes. Furthermore, they admit that they are uncertain how those lakes may change as temperatures increase.

Note also that this article only mentioned CO2 emissions, not methane, which is what you seem to be so in a tizzy about.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Looking at Newhaul's second link, entitled Defusing the methane bomb—we can still make a difference.

The first question that comes to mind is why Newhaul (or you, for that matter) would choose such an article to defend your idea that methane emissions are not a problem? Again, for Newhaul's benefit, from the first paragraph, first sentence:
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet
continuing on with the rest of that first paragraph:
causing the carbon-containing permafrost that has been frozen for tens or hundreds of thousands of years to thaw and release methane into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to global warming. The findings of a study that included researchers from IIASA, however, suggest that it is still possible to neutralize this threat.
Hello... methane threat alert... but I'm sure the scientists are all liars.

Continuing:
"It is important to put the two estimates [methane from human activities and methane from thawing arctic carbon sources] alongside each other to point out how important it is to urgently address methane emissions from human activities, in particular through a phase out of fossil fuels. It is important for everyone concerned about global warming to know that humans are the main source of methane emissions and that if we can control humans' release of methane, the problem of methane released from the thawing Arctic tundra is likely to remain manageable,"......

The results indicate that man-made emissions can be reduced sufficiently to limit methane-caused climate warming by 2100 even in the case of an uncontrolled natural Arctic methane emission feedback. This will however require a committed, global effort towards substantial, but feasible reductions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now let's look at the article I posted, Unexpected future boost of methane possible from Arctic permafrost

First paragraph:
New NASA-funded research has discovered that Arctic permafrost’s expected gradual thawing and the associated release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere may actually be sped up by instances of a relatively little known process called abrupt thawing. Abrupt thawing takes place under a certain type of Arctic lake, known as a thermokarst lake that forms as permafrost thaws.
Here we learn about a little-known mechanism that occurs when lakes form as the permafrost thaws. That implies that: 1) it hasn't been studied in detail before, so previous greenhouse gas estimates will not have taken this process into account; and 2) themokarst lakes are newly formed, and this not likely to be big enough for float planes to land on them, thus not included in the study that Newhaul mentioned.

And one of the study's "alarming" conclusions:
"We don’t have to wait 200 or 300 years to get these large releases of permafrost carbon. Within my lifetime, my children’s lifetime, it should be ramping up. It’s already happening but it’s not happening at a really fast rate right now, but within a few decades, it should peak."
and
They found that the abrupt thaw process increases the release of ancient carbon stored in the soil 125 to 190 percent compared to gradual thawing alone. What's more, they found that in future warming scenarios defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, abrupt thawing was as important under the moderate reduction of emissions scenario as it was under the extreme business-as-usual scenario. This means that even in the scenario where humans reduced their global carbon emissions, large methane releases from abrupt thawing are still likely to occur.
Unlike the study that Newhaul presented, which only studied 20 lakes in one area in Alaska, this research studied lakes both in Alaska and Siberia.
Walter Anthony and her colleagues captured methane bubbling out of 72 locations in 11 thermokarst lakes in Alaska and Siberia
Finally:
Because the thermokarst lakes are relatively small and scattered throughout the Arctic landscapes, computer models of their behavior are not currently incorporated into global climate models. However, Walter Anthony believes including them in future models is important for understanding the role of permafrost in the global carbon budget. Human fossil fuel emissions are the number one source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and in comparison, methane emissions from thawing permafrost make up only one percent of the global methane budget, Walter Anthony said. "But by the middle to end of the century the permafrost-carbon feedback should be about equivalent to the second strongest anthropogenic source of greenhouse gases, which is land use change," she said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, once again, I am dumbfounded by your and Newhaul's arguments. I call you deniers, because it is a short word with a lot of relevant implications. But it may be that you are simply scientifically illiterate, or perhaps you have a major problem with reading comprehension skills? Either way, your arguments are so far from reality that having a scientific discussion with you two is about as useful as .... well, all of the examples that come to mind will probably get people all riled up again for being a personal attack.

I often wonder whether readers of these AGW threads on CF find the alarmist viewpoint or the denier viewpoint more persuasive? Maybe some would find it informative to read this book review of INCONVENIENT FACTS: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You To Know.

It’s Easy to be Tricked by a Climate Denier
Here’s what to watch out for…
you keep referencing the facts that yea they all say the arctic is warming faster than anywhere else.

THAT WHOLE STATEMENT MADE IN ALL OF THE REFERENCED IS NOT CORRECT AND THATS PROVABLE .

Pick a year the average has stayed the same for over 70 years so the statement is categorically incorrect.

They use it to invoke alarmism you must also remember 90% + people will just believe what the msm says without question.
Apparently yourself included.

I question everything.
( btw never said we shouldn't stop polluting but co2 is not a pollutant.)

as to the second picture please explain how all or even any of those headlines from around the globe is even possible to be correct.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	meanT_2008.png
Views:	14
Size:	5.2 KB
ID:	192124   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20190513-191329.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	252.9 KB
ID:	192125  

__________________

__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 09:01   #287
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,790
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
The alternative to calling you and your buddies Climate Change Deniers is to call you scientific ignoramuses. Here is a summary from the first study that Newhaul posted:

If you can't personally handle the civility required for productive discussion, kindly refrain from provoking another thread closure to the detriment of others.

From this summary I conclude that methane emissions from oil and gas production is not increasing at a comparable rate to the production itself. (Hallelujah! That's great news.)

Conclusion ii) suggests that there still is some increase in the rate of methane emissions. (not so good)

Conclusion iii) suggests that previous researcher's errors stemmed from (apparently??) measuring ethane emissions (which have been increasing dramatically) rather than methane emissions directly (which haven't increased nearly so much), and assuming that the rate of methane emissions must follow the rate of ethane emissions.

Honest summary. Thank you.

Nowhere that I've read do the researchers say that methane emissions from gas and oil production are zero, or that current methane emissions are harmless, or that they are not making significant contributions to greenhouse gas accumulations, which is what you and Newhaul seem to be implying.

Never implied nor stated that they were zero or harmless. How significant their contribution to GHG may be seems to be the crux of the scientific issue. Try not to impute to others what they've never said (nor implied). That's more like L-E level debate.

Here is the first paragraph from Newhaul's article:
A study by a team of researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory has found that methane emissions from oil and natural gas production in the United States may not be rising as quickly as had been feared.
Note that the article is basically in agreement with the study. Methane emissions are not increasing as quickly as feared. No mention of whether current emission levels are benign or not.

Perhaps you may now better understand why your articles are so often accused of being biased & alarmist. Hard to imagine anyone claiming that any type of FF emissions are "benign."

With your illogical blinders firmly in place you now felt justified in saying all alarms over methane emissions are unwarranted,

I can't imagine I've ever said that.

and you even went further in suggesting that those who have raised concerns about methane emission are not being truthful -- which is a polite way of calling them liars. So, once again, you piously call for mutual respect and a toning down of provocative language, but then turn around and "shovel" out a load of manure.

Not "lying," only mistruths as a result of biased and agenda driven research. Failing to broaden one's research in such a complex scientific field can only lead to such errors. I don't think it's deliberate actually, at least not coming from you. I think you can and should be better informed.
It turns out that this is about as truthful as the alarmism SailOar has been shoveling out about methane over the past 10 years of natural gas production.
Yes, unfortunately.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm sure Newhaul will respond to the methane issue coming from the Arctic lakes.

So, once again, I am dumbfounded by your and Newhaul's arguments. I call you deniers, because it is a short word with a lot of relevant implications. But it may be that you are simply scientifically illiterate, or perhaps you have major problem with reading comprehension skills? Either way, your arguments are so far from reality that having a scientific discussion with you two is about as useful as .... well, all of the examples that come to mind will probably get people all riled up again for being a personal attack.

Really? Surely you can do better than again falling back on superficial labels & name-calling. You're obviously frustrated that there's now more concrete evidence that our complaints about your alarmism have been vindicated -- at least on the methane/fracking issue.

I often wonder whether readers of these AGW threads on CF find the alarmist viewpoint or the denier viewpoint more persuasive? Maybe some would find it informative to read this book review of INCONVENIENT FACTS: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You To Know.

It’s Easy to be Tricked by a Climate Denier
Here’s what to watch out for…
The way it usually works with lay people in complex, technical areas has little to do with the persuasiveness of the actual issue, but the credibility of the advocates making the pitch. Consistently representing various key aspects of CC science as settled fact, only to later uncover they are instead uncertain, is one of the best ways of compromising that credibility.
__________________

Exile is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 10:42   #288
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
you keep referencing the facts that yea they all say the arctic is warming faster than anywhere else.

THAT WHOLE STATEMENT MADE IN ALL OF THE REFERENCED IS NOT CORRECT AND THATS PROVABLE .
2018 Arctic Report Card - NOAA
Quote:
Executive Summary

....In 2018, surface air temperatures in the Arctic continued to warm at roughly twice the rate relative to the rest of the globe, a phenomenon that has been termed "Arctic Amplification." The year 2018 was the second warmest year on record in the Arctic since 1900 (after 2016), at +1.7° C relative to the long-term average (1981-2010). Arctic air temperatures for the past five years (2014-18) have exceeded all previous records since 1900. Growing atmospheric warmth in the Arctic results in a sluggish and unusually wavy jet-stream that coincided with abnormal weather events in both the Arctic and mid-latitudes. Notable extreme weather events coincident with deep waves in the jet-stream include the heat wave at the North Pole in autumn 2017, a swarm of severe winter storms in the eastern United States in 2018, and the extreme cold outbreak in Europe in March 2018 known as "the Beast from the East."....
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast
Quote:
...If anything, the researchers found, the pace of climate change could be somewhat more severe than previously acknowledged, at least in the fastest warming part of the world — its highest latitudes....

Notably, AIRS sometimes shows more warming than the NASA data set, and especially does so in the Arctic, a region where measurements are scarce and warming is fastest. Shockingly, it even finds that over the Barents and Kara seas in the Arctic, the warming trend is at a rate of 2.5 degrees Celsius — or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit — per decade.....

These findings should help put to rest any lingering concerns that modern warming is somehow due to the location of sensors in urban heat islands or other measurement errors at the surface..... [Hello Newhaul. Yet another of your many mistakes laid to a peaceful rest.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
as to the second picture please explain how all or even any of those headlines from around the globe is even possible to be correct.

Sorry, I don't do thumbnail collages. If you want to collect the links to those news stories I'm sure we'd all find it interesting.
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:03   #289
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
2018 Arctic Report Card - NOAA


Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast




Sorry, I don't do thumbnail collages. If you want to collect the links to those news stories I'm sure we'd all find it interesting.
really the Washington post if that's not but a biased rag.
I posted it before but here it is again
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
The vast majority of the last 2 decades the temperature has been below normal during the summer melt season . The blue line denotes the freezing point or 0℃
Now as to the world is warming faster everywhere than everywhere else .

here ya go since you don't want to do your own due diligence

Tom Nelson: Settled science: Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?
There are lots of links here .
As to that study from NASA the underlying data is not correct.
That's the reason that the study results are wrong
( we have been over this many to as in the past )

start doing your own due diligence and go after the message not the messenger.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:08   #290
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
....My question has nothing to do with denial, future methane emissions, or how many add'l articles you choose to post in the thread. You and your scientific articles have been making the case for years that methane emissions from fracking are a problem. Newhaul's posts cited scientific studies indicating that, over the past 10 years, this is apparently not true. I would think that, after all the studies you've linked us to and have presumably read, you would be able to respond intelligently on your own, and not simply link another article about unrelated methane emissions from another region of the world. If Newhaul's source(s) are so "questionable," then it shouldn't require much effort to demonstrate why this is so. It could also get us back on topic, namely which of these opposing research findings on methane emissions may be false.

What the heck SailOar, give it a whirl! Hitting the copy & paste buttons time & again has to be getting a bit tedious, no?
Exile, you are a bit of a bait-and-switch fraud. First you bait me into defending scientific studies....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
...I'm sure Newhaul will respond to the methane issue coming from the Arctic lakes. ....
....then when I show that even Newhaul's articles demonstrate that scientists are concerned about methane emission, both in the thawing Arctic as well as man-generated, you punt the topic back to Newhaul.

When I suggested earlier that you were scientifically illiterate I was sort of joking. But now I wonder if I've actually hit the nail on the head. Or maybe you once were scientifically literate, but now you're getting old enough that not all your neurons are firing?? Dunno, but it seems all you're capable of doing now is whining about how mistreated you are, and how much you deplore it when I post information from scientific studies. Very few serious comments from you on the science itself.
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:19   #291
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
really the Washington post if that's not but a biased rag.....

start doing your own due diligence and go after the message not the messenger.
Would be nice if you took a big swig of your own medicine. The Washington Post was merely reporting the results of NASA’s Aqua satellite. WaPo even provided the link to the original report.

Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:24   #292
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Then there is the UAH numbers
Roy Spencer, PhD
Funny how his data comes from the same satellite
But is so much different
Considering he's the one that did the coding for the data for NASA
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:26   #293
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,790
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Exile, you are a bit of a bait-and-switch fraud. First you bait me into defending scientific studies....



....then when I show that even Newhaul's articles demonstrate that scientists are concerned about methane emission, both in the thawing Arctic as well as man-generated, you punt the topic back to Newhaul.

When I suggested earlier that you were scientifically illiterate I was sort of joking. But now I wonder if I've actually hit the nail on the head. Or maybe you once were scientifically literate, but now you're getting old enough that not all your neurons are firing?? Dunno, but it seems all you're capable of doing now is whining about how mistreated you are. Very little serious comments on the science itself.
Oh please. I've purposely confined my comments & criticism to the natural gas/fracking issue since that's the one I recall being such a flashpoint when I've pointed out how it's been so effective in reducing US emissions. In response we hear about water contamination, earthquakes, and methane leakage. All quite appropriate and useful discussion points re: the pros & cons of fracking. I often hear about the methane hazards from melting permafrost, but the research concerning arctic lakes was news to me so I haven't commented. In other words, I DON'T KNOW (but will read your recent posts & try to learn).

Stop your hate-on for what you imagine but can't possibly know about people on the internet and stick to the issues. Whatever people wind up believing about fracking will not be influenced by what you happen to think about me or anyone else.
Exile is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:31   #294
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Since I'm on a methane high (try it, you might like it ) here's a recent journal article (not a scientific article) about the head-scratching scientists have been doing regarding why methane concentrations in the atmosphere climbed prior to 2000, then leveled off for ~10 years, and are now climbing again.



The Methane Detectives: On the Trail of a Global Warming Mystery



“And then, boom, look at how it changes here,” Dlugokencky says,
pointing at a graph on his computer screen. “This is really an abrupt
change in the global methane budget, starting around 2007.”
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:36   #295
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
... I often hear about the methane hazards from melting permafrost, but the research concerning arctic lakes was news to me so I haven't commented. In other words, I DON'T KNOW (but will read your recent posts & try to learn)....
No, it wasn't "news to [you]". I posted that information right after Newhaul's post, and before you started giving me grief. Maybe you should read all the relevant posts before you start criticizing. Maybe there would then be less reason to call you a denier.
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:44   #296
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
No, it wasn't "news to [you]". I posted that information right after Newhaul's post, and before you started giving me grief. Maybe you should read all the relevant posts before you start criticizing. Maybe then there would be less reason to call you a denier.
the more appropriate term would be skeptic not denier .
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:51   #297
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Then there is the UAH numbers
Roy Spencer, PhD
Funny how his data comes from the same satellite
But is so much different
Considering he's the one that did the coding for the data for NASA
I don't know if both sets of data come from the same satellite, but they certainly don't come from the same instruments. The UAH data pertains to atmospheric temperatures, while the Atmospheric Infra-Red Sounder (AIRS) data measures Earth's surface temperature.
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:53   #298
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,790
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
No, it wasn't "news to [you]". I posted that information right after Newhaul's post, and before you started giving me grief. Maybe you should read all the relevant posts before you start criticizing. Maybe then there would then be less reason to call you a denier.
I have no control over what silly labels people want to call each other over the internet. All I can do is point out their silliness for others to judge.

I'm losing the plot here. You are correct that it was your "information [posted] right after Newhaul's post" that I was referring to!

I DIDN'T KNOW JACK ABOUT THE ARCTIC LAKES UNTIL THAT VERY POST!!

But as I said, I didn't quite understand why you posted something about FUTURE potential methane emissions in lakes when Newhaul posted studies about releases confined to natural gas production over the PAST 10 years. If I didn't "know" you as well as I do (), I might be tempted to say you were just trying to change the subject. But hey, post whatever you want. I doubt most can read all of it, but I for one will do whatever I can.
Exile is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 11:56   #299
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
the more appropriate term would be skeptic not denier .
No, for reasons I've explained before, "denier", which is shorthand for "climate change science denier" is more accurate than "skeptic", which is shorthand for "climate change science skeptic".
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 15-05-2019, 12:01   #300
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 2,076
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

"The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. The lifespan of methane in the atmosphere was estimated at 9.6 years as of 2001; however, increasing emissions of methane over time reduce the concentration of the hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere.[44] With less OH˚ to react with, the lifespan of methane could also increase, resulting in greater concentrations of atmospheric methane.[73]"

Emphasis mine.
__________________

jimbunyard is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
arc, research

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help analyze personal inspection findings (1 of 5) pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 5 24-09-2018 13:01
Help analyze personal inspection findings (4 of 5) - coolant deposits pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 0 07-09-2018 10:57
Help analyze personal inspection findings (3 of 5) - chainplate alignment pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 13 31-08-2018 20:26
Help analyze personal inspection findings (2 of 5) - rudder corrosion pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 8 30-08-2018 16:30
Findings Issued in Block Island Ferry Collision Soundbounder General Sailing Forum 11 14-06-2011 06:01

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:10.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.