Two minor problem with this panic are :

Reply: Patrick, I would hardly call this a panic. Brett

1. methane levels in the atmosphere are no longer increasing.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html#atmospheric

and

2. Siberian permafrost isn't melting
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html

How should my friends from Bristol University (where I have spent many happy days) explain that the climate warmed in the first place?

It is obvious from farting moose to burping bogs nothing can save us. OMG are we all doomed? Wait a minute! I see salvation from the hell of seventy degree weather…..it is a $2 a gallon gas tax that is clearly designed to get all our money before we die.
LOL Please keep these nonsense articles coming.

This article is refering to the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) event that occured 55.5 million years ago. It is a good analogue for today since it shows how global warming can occur from an already warm climate.

Using isotope analysis we can trace the amount of carbon introduced and its rate. The PETM was catastrophic, sea level rise was more than 20 meters; extincition rates were off the charts. And yet we are introducing carbon into the atmosphere at more than 30 times the rate that natural process activity did back then.

And one last note: I see some denyers pointing to these geologic incidents and saying, See, it has natural; it is all happened before, so we do not need to worry. Well, here is the deal: There are 6.6 Billion people on this planet now and more on the way. 55.5 million years ago, humans were not around.

http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/02-20/warming.asp

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1711887.ece

What about all the methane emissions from frat houses and wing joints?

Sorry, Brett...couldn't resist.

"Beano...takes the wind out of Global Warming."

Brett,

I got 265,000 Google hits on "methane tipping point"

#1 was this gem-
Warming hits 'tipping point' Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1546824,00.html

Patrick: OK, I see your point. Brett

Apparently if you are an AGW believer, there is no need to check the facts before yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Yuri Izrael, director of the Institute of Climatology and Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, agrees that a catastrophic release of methane from the Siberian swamps is impossible. He says that the whole notion is misconceived. "The boundaries of the Russian permafrost zone remain virtually unchanged. For methane, other gases and hydrates to escape to the surface, it would have to melt at tremendous depths, which is impossible. In Yakutia, for example, the permafrost thaws by up to one and a half meters during summer. This is a normal phenomenon.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html

andy,

more dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria stuff, huh?...gotta save the world from ourselves, huh?...did you read the part where old doctor "scary" story (his name seems appropriate) used the analogy of lava flowing into an old oilfied...wonder what side of the green, save the world, environmental money fence he is on? or was it more likely, that the opening of the north atlantic shifted oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns and that is what caused climate change by introducing a place where warm water could reach the cold arctic?...hmm, guess no one ever thought of that...dang, and there were'nt any of us 6.6 billion begging-to-be-saved bad guys around to blame for it either...really andy, your doom and gloom, dire-adjective laden posts are a detriment to your crusade...try and have a nice sunny warm day...its a good thing...

Andrew-
"And yet we are introducing carbon into the atmosphere at more than 30 times the rate that natural process activity did back then."

Again another math error.... we don't have the needed biomass-

"The change at the PETM was so large that it would have required a decrease in biological activity equivalent to roughly three times the total present-day terrestrial biosphere. In other words, if all of the terrestrial carbon today (in forests, animals, soils, etc.) were converted to carbon dioxide and returned to the global inorganic carbon pool, the change in the global carbon isotopic ratio would only be a third as big as that observed during the PETM!" -Schmidt, G.A., and D.T. Shindell 2003. Atmospheric composition, radiative forcing, and climate change as a consequence of a massive methane release from gas hydrates. Paleoceanography 18, 1004, doi:10.1029/2002PA000757.

....AGW a theory with no science but a legion to follow the word of nonsense.

I wonder if Patrick actually read the pieces he cited.

For example, from his second link:
When asked if methane might erupt from the swamps and seriously pollute the atmosphere, Melnikov said, "The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane. This is an energy reserve for future generations, who will find a way to release it. Swamps are governed by the laws of nature, and we would need an exceptional reason to alter the natural course of things. A rise in temperature of one degree Celsius in the Siberian region in the 20th century cannot cause the permafrost to suddenly melt." He pointed out that the greatest man-made menace is not methane, but CO2, which is the principal greenhouse gas. "Through ignorance many people talk a lot about the 'methane threat' from the swamps, but say very little about their ability to retain and deposit CO2, thus doing a tremendous service to nature and mankind," he said. (emphasis mine)

So in this thread, the source PH cites in support of the claim that we don't need to worry about methane says the reason we don't need to worry is that CO2 is the real problem. In other threads, PH argues we don't need to worry about CO2 because it isn't really a GHG. Or sometimes he claims there's no warming AT ALL.

The contrarians/deniers like PH not only do not try to "connect the dots", they offer dots that contradict each other.

The only common organizing thread: a relentless, persistent bias against ANYTHING that threatens their contrarian/denialist posture.

Maybe some people may not relize that methane levels in the atmosphere have been fairly stable since 1999.

While methane levels are up about 150 percent since 1750 due to human activities, things are looking pretty good at the moment.

There are a lot of difficulties in measuring the amount of gas that cows emit and while rice farming is an emission source, it is a fairly stable activity. The state of bogs melting in the NH is also very tricky to measure.

Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and the increases since 1750 account for about a quarter of the current global warming, but at least there is some good news regarding the level in the atmopshere.

BT,

I'm pretty sure this thread is about CH4. But since you insist on digressing. Yuri Izrael is the source I quoted. He is also a vice-chairman of the IPCC. Here are some of his thoughts about global warming.

"there is no proven link between human activity and global warming."

Sea levels, due to rise by 47 cm in the 21st century, will not threaten port cities." He also states, "I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate," and, "There is no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact, because the climate has always been subject to change under Nature's influence, even when humanity did not even exist."[7] Additionally, he does not believe the 0.6 �C (1.08 �F) rise in temperature observed in the last 100 years is a threat, stating, "there is no scientifically sound evidence of the negative processes that allegedly begin to take place at such temperatures."[7]

Instead of decreasing carbon dioxide, he argues, aerosol injections in to the stratosphere would be a more effective way to mitigate global warming.[9] He appears to favor adaption over mitigation, arguing, "The people of Bangladesh, who live at sea level, may face problems if the Indian Ocean rises. Still, their resettlement would be much cheaper than projected Kyoto Protocol expenses."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Izrael

I'm pretty sure this thread is about CH4. But since you insist on digressing. Yuri Izrael is the source I quoted. He is also a vice-chairman of the IPCC. Here are some of his thoughts about global warming.

Patrick, I quoted my material from the second link YOU provided in your first comment on this thread. Please reread the seventh paragraph of the second link ("2. Siberian permafrost isn't melting") you offered.

I find it hilarious that you respond to my observation with YET ANOTHER random quote that supports one of the many mutually-inconsistent contrarian factoids that you flood us with. This "death by a thousand cuts" approach to "debate" exemplifies the contrarian/denialist style.

Far from being a digression, I assert that it, instead, cuts to the very heart of the contrarian/denialist participation here.

For the record, I am not at all sure that methane levels are viewed as a significant climate risk. Yes, there are scenarios where they are problematic. Many of those are, however, not widely viewed as probable or likely. The consensus about the role of anthropogenic CO2 is, on the other hand, much stronger.

Patrick

Would you please post recent news about permafrost melting from Arctic regions?

The article you cherry picked comes from circa 2005. This is like posting an article proving success and victory in Iraq by describing how the mission was successfully accomplished in 2005.

A great deal has changed in the world since and perhaps Yuri Izrael has changed his mind just as the pipelines across Siberia have begun to twist.

CH4 levelled off a few years ago but I have not seen any recent figures. Co2 is still often quoted as being 380ppm but it should be at least 410ppm by now if the increases in annual emissions and a decrease in absorption are taken into account.

How often do they update/calculate these figures Brett?
Reply: not sure exactly simon, I will look into it.

Maybe 440ppm is closer to the mark with the increase we have seen in volcanic activity over the past few years. However there does not seem to be a reliable definitive figure in use for either gas.

It is thought that CH4 levelled out because of an increase in deforestation, so it was never a good thing because it meant there are fewer areas left where co2 could be stored.

Foot and mouth in the UK reduced bovine production of CH4 and by cremation converted the source into co2, droughts have crippled local rice harvests cutting production by 90%.

Therefore should we expect a decrease in emissions from all drought affected regions?

But as hydroelectric dams are a global growth industry are we making up for any short falls?

Nevertheless warming seas will increase venting from oceanic methane hydrates from all oceans in years to come while the release from melting permafrost will add substantially to atmospheric methane content in the coming years so I think everyone will have to face the dangers of methane release as a knock on natural responce caused by AGW.

BT,

I am keenly aware that many people are panicked about CO2, or using CO2 panic as a vehicle for personal gain. That is not in question and I'm quite sure you can find millions of people from age 4-100 panicked about CO2 and willing to express their concerns.

It is rather annoying having to constantly discuss a moving target with you and I've pretty much reached my limit. This thread is about peat bogs and methane. Methane concentrations are level or declining. Obviously peat bogs are not disintegrating en masse, because if they were, atmospheric CH4 would be increasing.

Please save your CO2 paranoia for another thread.

Brett, or anybody,

Has anyone heard about any recent figures for satellite measurments of surface air temps? I consider that a potentially excellent method of assessign exactly how much the earth has warmed inthe last 5 years, independent of any urban warming bias or Hansen tomfoolery.

Al Gore seems to have completely lost touch with reality or any concern with telling the truth.

In the last three weeks, the amount of ice melting in the Arctic has been completely unprecedented. In only six days an area the size of the US state of Florida disappeared; in the week before that, an area almost twice the size of Britain disappeared.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paying-dearly-to-hear-gores-climate-story/2007/09/20/1189881602765.html

Actually, there has been zero melting in the arctic the last three weeks.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

ted,

Did that study take into account coal, gas, oil, oil shale and peat reserves?

I have not done the math, but it is hard to believe that anybody would claim that there is not enough carbon around.

They may be referring to only the amount of carbon in living organisms. Believe we understand that there is a lot more carbon in fossil fuels than in living organisms.

Thanks,

Patrick,

Believe you are unfairly picking on Al Gore.

He was clearly referrring to the several weeks in August when the amount of ice that melted per week was hundreds of thousands of square kilometers.

Anyhow, his point is valid in that during August, there were several weeks with dramatic declines in sea ice. There were numerous press releases on the matter.

Please do not forget that you were making some wild claims about Antarctic sea ice that were not verified and have since been retracted.

What does that make you?

Andrew,

All temperature stations in Antarctica are reporting below freezing today. Probability is high that the southern sea ice extent maximum record will be broken today or tomorrow using uiuc's new software. Seems a bit absurd to try to blame me for their software bugs?

Al Gore's comments were false on many levels. First, there has been no change in arctic ice over the last three weeks. Second, the rate (slope) of melt this year was not particularly unusual. Note that there are many years with the similar deltas between the max and min. What was unusual this year was that December and January were warm and the ice never recovered fully during the past winter.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

His contempt for the truth and the laziness of the press are both quite disturbing.

More on the NOAA map. One location showing bright red is Moab, Utah. According to weather underground and the weather channel, Moab highs have been slightly below normal this month (averaging 88F.)
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KCNY/2007/9/21/MonthlyHistory.html
http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/ski/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USUT0165?from=tenDay_bottomnav_ski

However, according to accuweather, highs have been well above normal - which accuweather thinks are more like mid-80s.
http://www.accuweather.com/forecast-climo.asp?partner=forecastfox&traveler=1&zipChg=1&zipcode=84532

How can there be a four or five degree discrepancy between normals for the same site? NOAA seems to be using similar data to accuweather.

Perhaps you can fill us in Brett?

Reply: That's a good question Patrick, but based on our own in house climate data the moab/canyonlands airport normal high ranges from 87 on the 1st down to 80 on the 20th. Which at first glance, at least in my opinion looks too low for this site. Yes, it is at 4554 feet elevation, but that is not very high in Utah. Anyway, still going with our climate data, 17 out of those 20 days had a high temperature above normal. So far, according to our records, the site is running 6.2 degrees above normal (highs/lows combined) this month. Not sure what the reason is for the discrepency. Brett

Patrick,

The point is that you made repeated dramatic statments based on a single report without obtaining verification from another independant source.

Not blaming you for their software bug, but I can imagine, they were asking themselves how they could be the only ones seeing a record. Never the less, as you can see it is very easy to make erroneous statements and obtaining idependant verification of data is important.

Al Gore also attempted to make some dramatic statments as well. Based on what happend last month with Arctic Sea ice, there is some basis for what he said. After all, record low levels of arctic sea ice have been recorded by multiple sources. However, he did not get it exactly right, just like you.

Differant circumstances, but similar outcomes with respect to being correct.

The reason why Moab is way above normal is because the low temperatures have been above normal nearly every day. In conclusion: There is no conspiracy. The black helicopters flying around your head are just delusions.

So Mark,

I query Brett about a discrepancy in the normal high temperature readings between various sources, and you respond with a comment that it has to do with the low temperatures. Thanks for the thoughtful insight.

Brett,

The weather underground site lists the Moab September highs as ranging from 93-84 between the start and end of September. That makes sense because July-August highs are average around 100. Difficult to imagine September 1 dropping off 12 degrees from August. The NOAA/accuweather numbers don't seem to make sense.

Off topic - I've been camping along the Green River in Canyonlands in July on days it was too hot to sleep at 10:00 pm and too cold to sleep at 6:00 am. Temperatures can drop 65 degrees under a clear sky there at night. Reply: Absolutely. Reminds me of the recent Survivorman episode in a desert, in which it was incredibly hot during the day while he was so cold at night he could not sleep. Brett