Maybe the earth just needs a big Gas X Plus chewy.

HAHAHAHAHA

Can anybody say "dutch oven"

I crack myself up.

Summarizing, some scientist scoured the ocean for methane bubbles in order to cash in on his 15 minutes of global warming fame at The Guardian. He doesn't present any evidence that what he saw was unusual.

There's been a large methane release all right......
Just follow your nose (and the research $).

hey bob, any comment on this new peer review report...

�How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006,�
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0818/2008GL034864/

Heres another interesting one...
"Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18

Some very powerful videos of methane gas escaping from permafrost:

http://www.alaska.edu/uaf/cem/ine/walter/videopage.xml

Katey Walter's research is very interesting.

I'm really getting melancoly for the old days.

When we didn't know so much about this planet, or pretend to,
and everything was not some disaster of the day.

Some disaster da jour.

It's like they said in the article, since the report isn't in a peer reviewed science journal, one should view the finding skeptically.

However, if there is peer verification of the finding, then it may be worthy of more study and scrutiny. It'd have to eventually be accurately measured and trended before any scientific conclusion can be reached.

If you want to understand the current scientific understanding of global warming, review the following:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Patrick: Scientists new about this issue thirty years ago. This is in the IPCC 3rd report.
Bob Tisdale: Regarding your post about warming in the northern hemisphere. Don't we need to take into account, the nature of the antarctic and arctic vortex as well. The Antarctic Vortex is being separated and less unified than the arctic Vortex due to the whole in the Ozone layer. This would mean that temps and wind currents as well as clouds could have an influence on the Arctic as well as land mass and the Arctic warming first.
Would you agree that this may be another factor to consider. This mid atmosphere effect could be one reason that the Antarctic Vortex is less effective, hence less stable to outlying causation. towards itself.
KIPP

Dennis Hlinka: regarding your remark about the Arctic Vortex.
" Decadal Changes of Wind Stress over the Southern Ocean Associated with Antarctic Ozone Depletion
Article from: Journal of Climate Article date: ABSTRACT
Using 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40) data and in situ observations, the positive trend of Southern Ocean surface wind stress during two recent decades is detected, and its close linkage with spring Antarctic ozone depletion is established. The spring Antarctic ozone depletion affects the Southern Hemisphere lower-stratospheric circulation in late spring/early summer. The positive feedback involves the strengthening and cooling of the polar vortex, the enhancement of meridional temperature gradients and the meridional and vertical potential vorticity gradients, the acceleration of the circumpolar westerlies, and the reduction of the upward wave flux.
So this shows another reasosn for the Arctic to become warmer first?
KIPP

Bob Tisdale: I meant to say arctic is less stable however the antarctic, ususally more stable does have a greater effect, in warmig through the SO and rossby waves moving warmer air northward.
KIPP

Hi paulm,

Why do all AGW papers seem to assume that the global temperature record ended sometime prior to 2006?

Reply: Maybe because it takes a year or two to do the research and write the paper.

Well all I'm going to say on this or any other subject of so called 'Global Warming'is this: Educated people ,about 60%of them anyway from my best guess is blinded by nthier own accomplishment of education that they themselves leave little room for discussion when it comes to thier own theories.I cannot subscibe to them for their total lack of reasoning !Education can sometimes be in my opinion propaganda and or otherwise just theory and unproven .
Thier is a rush to prove 'Global Warming 'humm
why is this ?I would rather subscibe myself to those that may be wrong but allow room in thier idea's to debate and not conclude from theory .
These people are more dangerous to the general
public then thier so called 'Global warming '.
Here is a known fact . in 1998 the earth according to the news media and nasa ,was as close to the Earths Sun as it has been in 40,000
years.If this is true it would appear reasonable to me that the Earths warming period has peaked and past into a cooling period that may take a few years to adjust but is inevetable.So much for 'Global Warming'and all their current theories on the subject.
Comment:If you are worried about the Earth warming and the rise in carbon monoxide.Then simply grow more harwood tree's to use the carbon and reduce sunlight hitting the Earth will then cool us.Otherwise their isn't any other realistic means to accomplish it . The Earth has it's own means for handling it and doesn't need some wacko
researcher or Sientist to correct it .thank you fro your time .It is more then you will get from them.
Dew

gettingwarm,

Those are neat videos.

Seeing the bubbles rising in the lake reminds me of a tale I heard about the same thing occurring in the North Atlantic. (The tale doesn't qualify as fact; more like Norse lore.) In any case, a mass of bubbles, larger than the one seen in the video, starts seething about a ship. Then, because the ship is no longer floating on water, but is in a sense suspended in air, or froth, the ship abruptly plunges out of sight. It doesn't slowly sink; it just is there one second and gone the next.

(Hmm. Maybe I'll skip the trip north, aboard the Eco-tourism icebreaker.)

We all must die someday, but if my end must be due to bubbles of gas, I think I'd prefer champagne.

Well with all the methane, there has to be some crap, here it is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/30/food.ethicalliving

The loonies have taken over the UK and are zooming in on the US.

Shallow gas deposits are a well known phenomenon. Almost every oil or gas well drilled offshore has a site survey performed in advance in order to detect and avoid pockets of methane. In the article referenced by Gettingwarm one of the captions notes that the gas escapes "year round". With temperatures approaching -70 F in the interior of Alaska in the winter, would any rational person assume that this gas is being released from melting permafrost? The presence of oil on the North Slope of Alaska was first detected in seeps where oil bubbled to the surface, long before anyone dreamed of global warming.

Kipp: If you'd reply on the same thread I commented on, your reply might make sense. On this thread, it doesn't.

I think the map is wrong. There is no marker over Washington DC. That's where most of the methane is being released today and most of the time.

Reply: That's a good one!

Caleb: If I should die tomorrow, I would like to share a bottle of my wifes French Champagne.
For some time now, scientists have been worried about the methane beneath the perma frost. Of course there is a greater potential up there for oil as well. I hope that we can see the cowboys win before we have that final toast. Cheers,
KIPP

Andrew: The fourth Assessment report is quite a read. There predictions however are a little off.
Like they said, the Arctic would be ice free by 2100. Now it is predicted that the Ice in the Arctic, in the summer, will be Ice free in five years. Isn't the report uncanny however in it's early predictions. It's take on recent weather in Connecticut is almost perfect. They said, less snow with lots of rain in winters, and a general warming trend. That's what has happened for the last three years. Also there understanding of the energy budget, showing the sun and other terrestrial events, as being factored as a small influence due to the amount of algorithmic watts. I wish that everyone who blogged here would read the fourth IPCC report first, so at least we could argue facts. Mark is right that now it has become very political, or just opinion, not just the facts. KIPP

Brett,

If it took three years to publish, all research would be outdated. Many papers make it to publication in a matter of weeks or months.

For those not in the choir, here's some valuable information"

"The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion"
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Methane has 23 times the impact of CO2. It appears scientists are still mulling all this over, so it's a bit early to start attacking the facts.

psst Andrew.....no one here reads the articles.

Now, for those that have an open mind and open eyes...why not develop technology to capture the methane? Why not tap into the sequestered methane and use it to generate electricity? If my understanding is correct, burning methane in the presence of oxygen, produces CO2 and water. CO2 is a less potent greenhouse gas than methane, so no harm no foul. In other words, we'd be doing potentially less harm to the atmosphere by burning methane, then by allowing it to release into the atmosphere.

Before the anti-AGW's here start calling me a hysteric or warmista - I must state that I am theorizing. Offering suggestions and asking for reasonable debate.

Gary B | October 1, 2008 4:35 PM --- Yes, by all means burn the methane rather than let it looswe in the air.

A dairy barn might be a good place to start.

Kipp: First, Rossby waves also travel south, and east, and west. Second, the Antarctic is not the only pole with an annular mode; the Arctic has one, too. But again, that discussion was on an earlier thread. Your flopping around from thread to thread is confusing to those who read this blog.

Kipp,

I believe I was the one who initiated the conversation a few blogs ago about the issue being more political than scientific. Mark concurred, but stated that it is only politicized from the right-wing while speaking from an obvious left-wing point of view. His response was the definition of politicized.

A non-politicized discussion would not involve any mention of anyone's left or right wing leanings. But the fact is, on most, not all, comments I read on either side of the debate, it can quite easily be inferred which way the speaker leans politically. Some hot political buzzwords that give it away from either side: deniers, alarmists, right-wingers, left-wingers, socialists, religious right, etc. Many other comments involve a person's background that has nothing to do with the issue. If a genuine reason for a conflict of interest can be asserted, then there is reason to bring background in it, but there's far to much speculation such as "Probably funded by big oil" or "Probably an Al Gore crony" whenever a study contradicting either side comes out.

Beneath all the noise somewhere, there lies an answer--personally I don't think we've found it yet.

"If it took three years to publish, all research would be outdated. Many papers make it to publication in a matter of weeks or months."

I guess it depends. If you're a quack or a charlatan who can't even get published in the National Enquirer, then you can probably get your 'research' to the public within 24 hours. There seem to be many of these types of people within the Denialist community.

Kipp,

You are being much too conservative. It is predicted by noted authorities that the Arctic and North Pole will be ice free this year.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13779-north-pole-could-be-ice-free-in-2008.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news5_head_dn13779

GaryB: If they could find it in one place they would. Methane captured under the permafrost, is pretty ubiquitous. Bubbles here. Bubbles there.
But at least your thinking creatively, and are not stuck on your favorite Political position. Nor dedicated to consuming the very last ounce of oil. They have found methane calthrates in the oceans bottom, and believe that if warming continues those calthrates will start to release methane there as well. Methane is twenty times more reactive to heat but the good news is it only has a half life of seven years unlike CO2.
They used to pounce on me every time I said exxon-Mobil, but I sure did learn a lot faster after that. As my mom used to say,sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.I appreciate your call to sanity, however much
good that will do. KIPP

Amazing how all the CO2 and CH4 can't seem to cause any warming, isn't it? "Greenhouse gases" don't drive Earth's climate, and they never will. The search for the warming-in-hiding continues LOL.

I don't know what the fuss is...its CO2 that causes the green house effect not CH4!

paulm: You wrote, "I don't know what the fuss is...its CO2 that causes the green house effect not CH4!"

I suggest you go back and take Climate Alarmism 101 again. Apparently you missed the semester when they were discussing the greenhouse effect. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.