THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bob_FJ,
I detect a degree of collectivism in your world view; a view that seems to embrace the idea that “what’s yours is mine” (which is your prerogative); however, has been demonstrated throughout history to be a model for dismal failure. You seem to believe that the oil in the ground or the food that is harvested “rightfully” belongs to everybody.
And I would argue that being eternally indebted to “The State” is antithetical with human nature and for all intents and purposes, slavery. For instance, the American health system…..we have “private” and “public” health systems; I’ve had experience with both and the public health system is far inferior to the private health system. I’m certain that you would argue that “private” level health care ”must” be available to all, which is impossible. So, the only solution would be to lower the standard of “private” health care to the level of public health care so that everyone receives inferior, or less than optimum services such as the European model where people must “wait their turn” enduring excruciating pain in order to have (for instance) a tooth extracted. The result being that patients medicate themselves with a large bottle of bourbon and remove the tooth themselves with a pair of pliers. The result of Socialists policies is not to elevate the level of services, but to erode and diminish the standard making everyone miserable. I’m sorry, but that’s the track record of the Socialist/Collectivist system. It removes incentive from the equation with the result being mediocrity not excellence.
My personal opinion is to allow them to fail. GM, Ford and Chrysler have entered into contracts with various unions that have become parasites inhibiting the success of the companies, (another result of government intervention/over regulation). Contractually, more “employees” of the big three are paid to stay at home than actually earn a living. The average salary is, I believe, $95.00 per hour which is legalized theft for performing a task that rightfully should pay $15.00 per hour.
The reason that we have experienced an economic downturn here in the United States, (which has trickled down through the world economy), is due to over regulation of commerce. Liberal members of Congress strong armed banks to provide loans to people that are poor credit risks in the name of “leveling the playing field” or in a truer sense, giving people something for nothing.
But it isn’t; primarily, due to it’s Collectivist policies.
We did experience a slightly tumultuous period commonly referred to as The American Civil War or The War Between The States. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000 dead. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam. The loss of material/economic assets would be incalculable.
I think that I mischaracterized my view here. Government oversight is necessary; however, the fact is that the “world” economy is heavily dependent upon the American economy. I don’t write this as an American but as a historian. Loosely characterized, 100 years ago the dominant economic/military power was Great Britain; 100 years before that…..still Great Britain…..100 years before that, Spain…..Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, Egyptian Empire…..and so on. 100 years from now the economic locomotive will be someone else, (probably China).
My view is that government should have a very limited role in our day to day lives (as little as is necessary). The trend (at least currently) in the United States is to expand government. Government produces nothing aside from debt. What is occurring is that “takers” numbers are increasing while “contributors” numbers are decreasing. Eventually takers will outnumber contributors. Even a Collectivist would realize that this system cannot continue on it’s current path and will eventually implode.
May we discontinue discussing this topic?
Maybe move it to a different venue?
This link was sent my way. It is an excellant summary.
It’s about 10 minutes long:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Robin,
Yes, the exchange on TonyN’s “Goodbye to 2008” site is interesting.
I believe that, as long as we are talking about political rhetoric and posturing or government support for token “green projects”, there will not be much interest in (or opposition from) the broad public.
But as soon as a major increase in costs for all goods and services is mandated through the imposition of draconian carbon taxes (or cap and trade schemes), public opposition will grow, particularly in the present period of economic crisis and compounded by the current global cooling.
This may take a bit longer to manifest itself in the UK than in some other countries, possibly partly because of slight differences in the forms of government.
I would submit that there is another deeper factor that is exemplified in the following historical events:
In August 1947 the French government reduced the bread ration; there were riots across France for several days.
A few weeks later, the British government reduced the meat ration, at the same time banning foreign vacations; British subjects accepted this stoically with the traditional “stiff upper lip”.
Sure, times have changed (as have demographics). But I still believe that yours is a more patient people than many others. But I believe that there are limits, even here.
Regards,
Max
Max/Robin,
I for one am extremely happy that Obama has dedicated himself to green causes and the impending apocalyptic catastrophe that is global warming. This link provides a wonderful example of his commitment.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ObamaCarbonBigfoot.pdf
Hi Peter,
You stated, “The methodology is OK as far as it goes except that 288 deg C should be more like 255 deg C.”
It is said that medieval theologians had heated debates about the “sex of angels”.
We are about to enter such a discussion if we play your theoretical game: “at which altitude and therefore at what temperature do the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere do their magic greenhouse warming trick?”
Let’s do a quick check, anyway.
255K (-18C is the atmospheric temperature at 5000 m altitude, roughly half-way between the surface and the tropopause. Roughly 60% of all the CO2 molecules lie below this altitude, with the rest above. These are the CO2 molecules that are happily absorbing the IR waves reflected from our planet’s surface (and from low-lying water droplet clouds).
But let’s assume your figure is right. Using IPCC (Myhre et al.) and Stefan-Boltzmann we get a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of just under 1.0C, just as you stated.
This means we “should have” seen 0.45C anthropogenic warming from 1850 to today, and “should” see another 0.55C from today until year 2100.
The above calculation assumes no net positive or net negative feedbacks.
The Hadley record (and solar studies tell us that the anthropogenic warming was actually a bit lower from 1850 to 2008, at around 0.3C.
Could there have been net negative feedbacks at work here?
The physical observations of both Spencer and Norris on clouds and of Minschwaner + Dessler on water vapor do indeed indicate that the net total effect of all feedbacks is negative, i.e. one of slight cooling.
Taking the IPCC 2xCO2 figure (no feedbacks) and adding in the corrected figures for feedbacks to the IPCC estimate, as based on the actual physical observations, rather than on IPCC model assumptions, gives us:
+0.8C [2xCO2, no feedback]
+0.4C [Water vapor plus lapse rate, corrected for Minschwaner + Dessler observations]
+1.2C [Sub-total 1]
+0.4C [Surface albedo per IPCC]
+1.6C [Sub-total 2]
-1.0C [Cloud feedback per Spencer and Norris observations]
+0.6C [2xCO2 climate sensitivity, including feedbacks]
If we now substitute your “no feedback” figure of 1.0C into this calculation, we arrive at a corrected 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (including all positive and negative feedbacks) of +0.8C.
This would indicate that we have already seen 45% of this warming (0.36C), leaving the balance (0.44C) from today to year 2100.
Makes sense to me. Don’t believe we need to “quibble” about the “altitude”, since it does not make a significant difference to the conclusions, which are based on actual physical observations instead of on theoretical computer model assumptions and hypothetical calculations, anyway.
Based on all of this, can we now agree that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is somewhere below 1C and that we can expect somewhere around 0.5C warming from today until 2100?
If not, why not?
Regards,
Max
TonyN,
You are asking me why recessions have to occur and how the development of new technologies can create new wealth?
There was a feeling among many on the political left that the depression of the 1930’s would resume after the end of WW2. Of course that did not happen. One of the theories put forward to explain it was known as the ‘Permanent Arms Economy’. Essentially the idea was that even though there was no actual large war taking place,certainly not on the scale of WW2 at any rate, governments of the western world would just carry on as if there were and spend big time on armaments manufacture. The big bad capitalists would carry on making big profits and the workers would have well paid and secure jobs. Everyone’s a winner :-)
That isn’t the complete explanation, but I do believe there was and still is a lot of truth in it. Of course, it makes much more sense to spend on something that is actually useful, which could have a similar effect on the economy, and a beneficial effect on the environment.
As to the reason that recessions have to occur in the first place, I’ll leave that for another time.
Max,
Well I make it just over one degree. But lets not quibble about decimals.
I’d like to think that you are getting there but I do have a sneaking suspicion than you are trying to use the available science to justify the position you held before you reached for your calculator. Unlike me whose opinion is solely determined by the results of the calculations:-) Seriously though, I really wouldn’t have a problem if some new work came to light which showed that there were strong negative feedbacks in the system. But, it doesn’t make any sense to initially argue that there are no feedbacks, and then say ‘well wait a minute, maybe I don’t have a problem if the feedbacks are negative’.
And then there is the effect of ocean heat uptake to consider. You’re still pretty quiet on that one.
In the various exchanges above, Peter and Max have amply demonstrated that ‘man made’ climate change is not based on any hard observable facts but on highly theoretical and completely unproven pseudo science.
Speaking of pseudo science Peter how about a reply to my question regarding the co2 thermostat which we seem to have broken in 1900.
TonyB
TonyB,
Yes I do realise that mathematical equations and some discussion of the theory behind climate change are totally unintelligible to some. Science is a mixture of theory and practice. Don’t disparage the theory too much though. Theory was all the scientists had in 1944-45 when they built their first atomic bomb. In practice there was a pretty big bang when they first pressed the button.
I really don’t know what you are on about with your ‘pre-1900 thermostat’.
Emirates exec slams global warming theory
A senior Emirates airline executive has derided the entire theory of global warming in an attack on Al Gore’s Oscar award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, labelling the former US vice president’s firm “absolute rubbish”.
Do the Saudi`s Know something the IPCC et al are unaware of, would they spend $10.5 billion on a development that is meant to guarantee their financial future when the oil runs out if it is likely to be under water in the foreseeable future, what did Gore say 20ft rise likely.
Peter,
With the 100 or so years of measurements we have for temperature and CO2, empirical evidence does not support high positive feedbacks. Even if we assign all the 20th century warming to CO2, which is unlikely, our current warming rates imply close to zero feedback. Where is your proof to counter this other than computer models.
Computational Aerodynamics
The advent of computers is a comparatively recent technological development which is becoming increasingly important in how aeroplanes are designed.
Computer designed aeroplane wings.
Computers can now be used as a virtual wind tunnel to simulate the air flowing past an aeroplane. Designers can get much more detailed information about the air flow from a computer model; but even the most powerful of today’s computers can only roughly approximate the full complexity of how air flows around an aeroplane. In addition, a computer simulation can take several hours or even days to run – whereas wind tunnel data for the same case can be acquired in less than a second.
So wind tunnels remain a vital part of the modern aircraft design process because they enable aircraft companies to check their computer generated data and ensure that their designs are safe.
Peter, you check the model with actual data to ensure the model is correct, you warmers appear to do it the other way round. How would you rate the complexity of an aeroplane wing to the global weather system.
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/dubai-palm.htm/printable
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/503199-emirates-exec-rubbishes-global-warming-theory
BobClive,
This computers vs wind tunnels argument seems pretty naive. Surely both have an important part to play. Maybe you can measure the performance of an actual wing quicker in an air tunnel but what about if you want to optimise its shape?
You can use a computer to vary a wing geometry much quicker and cheaper than a making a whole range of actual models. Computers are a lot cheaper than wind tunnels. They can be left running unattended overnight and at weekends.
It would be nice to have a second earth to experiment with in the same way that aircraft engineers can build prototype models. Any ideas and suggestions as to how that can be achieved?
I’ve presented my calculations to show why the measured warming of the last century or more is consistent with a 2 x CO2 value of 3 degK when all factors such as ocean heat uptake are included.
If you disagree, let’s see your calculations!
The Earth’s atmosphere (or air) is 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
Of the 0.0383% carbon dioxide number, (I believe we agreed) about 5% was Anthromorphic in origin.
Max,
You’re good at this, I’m not; would you mind creating a graph using these numbers? I’m interested to see what the manmade contribution looks like lined up against the remaining elements. (I’m having trouble scaling it).
I can’t get the 5% manmade (of the total CO2 Carbon Dioxide number) to show up on a graph.
I can’t even get the total amount of atmospheric CO2 (.038) to show up.
Brute,
I hope that you don’t mind my giving you a hand in your arguments , but if you are saying that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from 280ppmv to 383 ppmv that this works out at a 36.8% increase, or 26.9% of the current level, rather than the 5% you’ve mentioned. I just thought you might want to get that right.
Gavin Schmidt has also worked out, but I don’t think he claims originality, that if all carbon dioxide were removed from the atmosphere, the GH effect would be 9% less than it actually is. There is generally reckoned to be a natural GH effect of about 33 deg C. You can trust this figure because Max himself has quoted it. Its a slightly dangerous thing to say for reasons I might come back to later, but 9% of 33 degC does work out to be very close to 3 deg C.
Brute, reur 3751, you wrote in part:
Yes indeed, let’s do that!
Max,
Sorry I missed one of your posts. You didn’t ignore the ocean heat uptake question, and you did say there was ” very good reason to believe it will continue doing so from 2008 to 2100 “.
The ocean can’t soak up excess heat for ever though. I’ve always thought it was curious that 2100 is always considered to be the ‘key year’. Most of us are going to be just as dead in the year 2100 as we’ll be in 2200 and beyond. So, as far as the current generation is concerned, you could argue that these years are just as important.
Yes, it will take longer for the oceans to warm. But, on the other hand, it will take just as long for them to cool when the CO2 levels are finally brought under control. The oceans do a good job in soaking up excess CO2 . However, if they do warm the soluability of CO2 will decrease and they will become CO2 emitters.
The next few years will be quite interesting. My money is , literally, on another jump in temperatures. If this happens the best we can hope for is that temperatures will rise by about 0.15 – 0.2 degC per decade for the foreseeable future. If the Arctic tundra does melt and release large quantities of methane then we’ll be in real trouble. The oceans aren’t going to save us then.
Brute and Bob_FJ,
Can I join in the health care argument?
If so I’d just like to point out that the U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%. In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending.
And the results? Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S.
So, I would say its not just a question of the US government spending more money, but being smarter and helping to create a more efficient system. For instance , pharmaceutical products are much cheaper in Canada ( and Australia too) than in the USA. I’m sure the figures for Australia would be just as comparable. I’m not saying that you (Brute) should copy North Korea. I’d just argue that you should learn to be more like us and the Canadians!
Max (#3752):
Yes, I agree that the British are a patient people but that they would nonetheless oppose draconian and painful measures introduced to curb CO2 emissions – especially in a severe economic downturn. The danger, therefore, is that their patience will permit pain to creep up on them without their noticing its coming. The old story comes to mind about how a slowly boiled frog will stay in the pan until it dies whereas a frog put into boiling water quickly jumps out.
And that, I believe, is what’s happening. Because of climate change fears, the European Union has decreed that our older coal-fuelled and nuclear power stations must be closed within 10 to 15 years. But the government has dithered for years about their replacement – partly because it fears a green outcry if it initiates new coal or nuclear plants. They’re now talking nuclear (only talking) yet still shying away from coal – although they’re loudly proclaiming the introduction of “renewables”. Yet, although absurdly expensive, renewables cannot possibly replace the electricity lost when the old plants are closed. Nonetheless, yet another EU requirement is that we produce 15% of our electricity from renewables by 2020 and, exacerbating this, Parliament has recently decreed that CO2 emissions be cut by over 25% by that year. This is not “political rhetoric and posturing” – our leaders are determined that it shall happen. Yet few people – as you say, “the British are a patient people” – have noticed because the old plants are still operating and electricity supplies are reliable. Yet, within a few years, we face severe and painful power shortages.
But then protest will be too late.
Best wishes – R
Brute #3761
Here is a graph showing cumulative man made co2
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
its also available in excel if you want to playt with the figures
Peter #3757
The debate is not unintelligible-and is often very interesting- but does illustrate the highly theoretical and unproven nature of the science, which seems to be based on the idea the earth is some giant enclosed laboratory experiment, rather than that we are subject to chaotic and unpredicatable forces. To make it worse we are trying to make sense of it with flawed data derived from such things as the meaningless concept of a global temperature and the even more bizarre idea of a global temperature to 1850. Anyway-please continue-it is a fascinating duel!
Peter #3672
You said;
“Gavin Schmidt has also worked out, but I don’t think he claims originality, that if all carbon dioxide were removed from the atmosphere, the GH effect would be 9% less than it actually is. There is generally reckoned to be a natural GH effect of about 33 deg C. You can trust this figure because Max himself has quoted it. Its a slightly dangerous thing to say for reasons I might come back to later, but 9% of 33 degC does work out to be very close to 3 deg C.”
I do not think I have seen this quantified in this way before and am astonished the overall co2 effect is so small.
My query on co2 that you seem to have missed is that you believe co2 levels have been constant at 280ppm throughout history until recent times- as shown by ice cores. However you also believe the co2 ‘thermostat’ is very sensitive to temperature changes as illustrated by its dramatic rise over the last century, even though any corresponding temperature increase has actually been very modest. Bearing in mind temperatures in mans historic past have been higher than- and lower than- today- you would reasonably expect the co2 levels would fluctuate also to levels greater than- and less than- today. According to you and the ice core experts this didn’t happen however and I am curious to know why the levels should remain constant.
TonyB
Tonyb,
So manmade CO2 represents approximately 0.001915% of the atmosphere?
I think I have my decimal in the wrong place.
Soda pop fizz will mean the end to us all. I was attempting to create a bar graph and can’t show a representation of .001915% of the total atmosphere. It simply disappears.
Brute
You need a very big graph to do calculations that will show the trace gases to any sort of meaningful scale-which does not reflect their relative potency-methane being far more potent than co2 but being measured in parts per billion rather than parts per million. Also remember that overwhelmingly co2 levels are caused by natural-rather than man made- means, and that all co2 is but a fraction of ALL GHG which are overwhelmingly natural water vapour. I think the overall context is sometimes lost in the nitty gritty of a scientific debate.
To believe in AGW you have to believe in an extraordinary state of equilibrium that means the gases are in a very fine balance that can’t be disturbed by a fraction without fundamentally altering our climate. I don’t believe this delicate equilibrium exists
The calculations for the UK are as follows but it is easy to scale up for your circumstances
UK emissions are 4% of total emissions
Emissions 4% of natural CO2 annual flux
Flux ~ 20% of total CO2 in air
CO2 in air ~ 400ppm ~ 0.04% atmosphere
CO2 in air ~ 2% of total CO2 in water
UK annual emissions are 4/100 x 4/100 x 20/100 x 2/100 of total CO2 = 4×4×4/10,000,000 of total CO2,
(less than one-hundred-thousandth of total CO2)
Alternatively,
UK annual emissions are 4/100 x 6/800 x 400/1,000,000 = 12/1,000,000,000, about a one-hundred-millionth of total air
UK annual emissions at one hundred millionth of total air equates to 0.5 of a molecule in a milion of CHG
In more every day language;
Since 1750 Britain has contributed 0.5 man made molecules of co2 per 100,000 of atmosphere in total- much of which will have dropped out of the system anyway, assuming a half life of 40/50 years.
TonyB
Tonyb,
Tonyb,
That’s what I figured, although I thought that maybe you guys, having more practice with the graph software, could create something that would demonstrate the infinitesimally small amount of CO2 attributable to “mankind” in comparison to “natural” CO2 and all other gases present in the atmosphere.
I know that the general public would be astonished if they came to realize the actual numbers both concerning overall CO2 and to a further extent, the portion of the CO2 that mankind is directly responsible for……… or the actual amount of temperature increase and decrease that we are discussing averaged over the entire globe, averaged over 150 years, (most Americans don’t know who their Congressional representatives are).
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not dismissing the potency of “greenhouse” gases…..(a very small concentration of Cyanide can be deadly).
Brute
I did experiment with graphs of a size that could be printed, but the numbers became far too small to see anything.
They might show up if they were screened on to the side of a skyscraper, which is the analogy Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, used when he explained the miniscule effects of mankind’s CO2 emissions in relation to the Earth’s atmosphere.
“If the atmosphere was a 100 storey building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,”
Bear in mind of course that the ‘linoleum’ would degrade in 40/50 years! You are right about cynanide but then of course it is alien to our body, unlike co2 which is the very stuff of life.
TonyB
I am unable to grab images and display them here, so could someone do me a favour and go to this site
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Hawaii.htm
It is temperature data for the Hawaiian islands where Mauna Loa is situated-it was chosen so the monitoring station was far away from man made influences as you will recall. Intriguingly it shows no warming at all since 1970. Halfway down the site is a combined graph showing the temperature on which is superimposed the Keeling curve. Can someone grab it and display it here?
I have done something similar for various national temperature data sets and the co2 curve doesnt begin to match the temperature graph. Curiously however it does when compared to the global temperature dataset…Thanks
TonyB
Hi Peter,
In defense of the warming “in the pipeline” postulation, you wrote, “The ocean can’t soak up excess heat for ever though.”
Now let’s get this straight.
You are presumably saying that the observed atmospheric warming attributable to AGW of 0.3C from 1850 to 2008 would really have been twice or let’s say even three times this amount, but most of the greenhouse warming was absorbed by the ocean (and is therefore “hidden” from Hadley’s thermometers).
[Let’s not fall into the side discussion here of how Hadley measures the ”sea” part of its “globally averaged annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly”.]
You are also implying that the ocean’s ability to “soak up this excess heat” is limited.
If I understand your postulation correctly, you are predicting that the ocean will at some point reach a temperature at which it will no longer be able to “soak up this extra heat” and will start releasing this stored heat back into the atmosphere, causing added atmospheric warming.
Let’s do a quick sanity check on this.
The atmosphere has a mass of 5.1 * 10^6 Gt (5,100,000 Gt)
Its specific heat is around 1 joule/gram
The ocean has a mass of 1.37 * 10^9 Gt (1,370,000,000 Gt)
Its specific heat is around 4 joule/gram
This would mean that a 0.6C difference in atmospheric temperature (representing the postulated “hidden” two-thirds of the anthropogenic warming from 1850 to 2008) is equivalent to an increase in ocean temperature of:
0.6 * 5,100,000 * 1 / (1,370,000,000 * 4) = 0.00056C
But wait! You might argue that we are not talking about heating up the entire ocean, but just the “upper ocean”. This is defined as the top 750 meters by Lyman et al., and it has an estimated mass of 270,000,000 Gt.
So that a 0.6C difference in atmospheric temperature (representing the postulated “hidden” two-thirds of the anthropogenic warming from 1850 to 2008) would be equivalent to an increase in upper ocean temperature of:
0.3 * 5,100,000 * 1 / (270,000,000 * 4) = 0.0029C
This is the hypothetical ocean greenhouse warming we have theoretically experienced in the past 158 years. This does not sound very alarming to me, Peter.
You wrote, “Yes, it will take longer for the oceans to warm.” You’re right; a whole helluva lot longer, like 10,000+ years!
I believe this pretty much shows that the whole “in the pipeline” postulation is pseudoscientific gobbledygook. It does not pass the “sanity test”, so you can safely forget it.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “If the Arctic tundra does melt and release large quantities of methane then we’ll be in real trouble. The oceans aren’t going to save us then.”
Yeah. “IF” is a very big word.
Some scientists do tell us that if temperatures continue to warm at projected rates over a very long period of time, the carbon released from thawing permafrost “could approach 0.8 to 1.1 GtC per year in the future”.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134309.htm
This compares with current human emissions:
7.6 GtC/year from fossil fuels
1.6 GtC/year from deforestation
0.4 GtC/year from human respiration
0.4 GtC/year from cement production
10.0 GtC/year total.
So this (“iffy”, maybe, long-term, future) event would add 8 to 11% to the current human carbon emissions.
Ho hum!
Not to worry, Peter. Doesn’t sound like “real trouble” to me.
Regards,
Max