Tuesday, September 10, 2024

The Non-Doom Non-Radiative Forcing Casino math analysis of Eliot Jacobson: Methane without any Arctic Methane "bomb"

 that methane's one-year GWP is 200....It gets even worse for an abrupt eruption of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. If such an eruption occurred instantly, a one-year GWP of 200 seems more appropriate.

Now that is from Sam Carana of http://arctic-news.blogspot.com

I received the following reply from Eliot Jacobson


Sep 9, 2024, 6:05 PM (7 hours ago):

 Look, I answered your question in my article. There are three errors – and the computation below makes the same three errors. The GWP is not 200 (it’s 120 as I PROVE in my article), you can’t multiply ppb you have to multiply mole-fractions, and you need to use the 1750 baseline and take the rise since then. I give a very explicit computation and show exactly where Glikson went wrong. The primary way to see Glikson is wrong is that he gets N2O being almost twice as powerful as CH4 as a GHG. It’s just stupid wrong.

 Sam Carana and Guy McPherson are similar in many ways, mostly not understanding the basics of what they are talking about. I NEVER respond publicly to anything they post or say, nor do I re-post and comments about them.

Now the question is  - does Eliot's article even mention the Arctic pressurized ESAS methane because there's 1200 gigatons of it!!

Hi Professor Andrew Glikson: Can you (or someone tied to the below arctic-news quote) reply to the below Eliot Jacobson CO2-equivalent claim? Thanks for your posts on http://arctic-news.blogspot.com I did my undergraduate degree in "sustainability" at UW-Madison (1994, technically it was a new environmental option in International Relations, supposedly integrating biology, economics and political science, thereby enabling me to directly experience these disciplines lying about each other). My master's degree was focused on applied sustainability policy changes as volunteer research along with deep ecology philosophy of science at University of Minnesota Twin Cities - technically a Liberal Studies degree in 2000. I worked in half a dozen environmental activist nonprofits starting in 1989 and I got arrested eight times doing civil disobedience, along with organizing various campaigns and coalitions in Minnesota....
“As discussed in an earlier post, peak daily average methane is approaching 2000 parts per billion (ppb) at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. A methane concentration of 2000 ppb corresponds – at a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 200 – with 400 ppm CO₂e. Together with a daily peak CO₂ concentration of 430 ppm, this adds up to a joint CO₂e of 830 ppm, i.e. only 370 ppm away from the clouds tipping point. ”
Math Professor Eliot Jacobson is going into detailed analysis to claim only a CO2-equivalent level of some 540 ppm.
I've asked him to reply to the above claim on Arctic-news and he has refused to do so - I posted a comment to both his latest blog posts but he has not posted my comment at all. Maybe he thinks I'm not qualified enough to receive a response.
thanks,

drew

 When I word search his article I get nothing for hydrates, siberian or arctic...OK I do get the critique of Glikson.

So above Glikson is using a 200 increase over 1 year but Eliot ignores this - instead relies on a 2019 glikson analysis. In other words Glikson is relying on the real world ESAS methane bomb while Eliot is relying on some abstract Newtonian calculus "instantaneous" methane value.  Very bizarre indeed.

 https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/03/confirm-methanes-importance.html

 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

So this paper is cited by Sam Carana....

  Methane's RF is particularly impacted because of the inclusion of the shortwave forcing; the 1750–2011 RF is about 25% higher (increasing from 0.48 W m−2 to 0.61 W m−2) compared to the value in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013 assessment; the 100 year global warming potential is 14% higher than the IPCC value
The image on the right therefore uses a short-term GWP for methane of 171 in the panel on the right-hand side, 14% higher than the 150 used earlier.

 Contrary to Elliot's dismiss of Sam Carana/Andrew Glikson the Nitrous Oxide is NOT greater than the Methane - so not sure why Eliot is claiming otherwise.

One final note for the astute reader. There’s another huge hint that something is wrong with Glikson’s computation. Namely, his computation gives a warming impact from N2O that’s greater than the warming impact from CH4. But it is well-known, even among young children, that methane is the #2 greenhouse gas. So bzzzt!

 Is this just a "strawman argument" claim since Eliot refuses to read http://arctic-news.blogspot.com? Apparently.

based on IPCC AR5 data that were similarly updated by 14% and that indicates that methane's one-year GWP is 200.

 Mean global carbon dioxide was 413.28 ppm in November 2020. Mean global methane was 1891.9 ppb in November 2020, which at a 1-year GWP of 200 is 378.38 ppm CO₂e. Together, CO₂ and methane add up to 791.66 ppm CO₂e, which is 408.34 ppm CO₂e away from the 1200 ppm CO₂e clouds tipping point.

 So here we get the claim that ppb can not be converted to ppm co2 equivalent? Eliot is relying on moles as the conversion ratio due to the different weight of methane and co2 yet the issue is not weight but rather quantum "Radiative forcing." So let's see what the article cited by Sam Carana states.

strangely the article's source mentions nothing about weight at all - and actually does have a conversion of ppb to ppm

Why is Eliot, a former lecturer - not tenured apparently - relying on Wikipedia for his analysis source of using moles to convert - and nothing about "radiative forcing"? Meanwhile Sam Carana and Andrew Glikson are relying on "radiative forcing" - a quantum physics term. Maybe quantum physics is not "casino" enough?

How likely is such a large methane burst? Remember the warnings by Natalia Shakhova et al., who more than a decade ago concluded abrupt release of up to 50 Gt from the vast amounts of methane stored in the form of hydrates and free gas to be highly possible at any time.

A recent study found methane leaking from a large pool of deep, preformed methane, indicating a large potential for abrupt future releases.

Obviously, an extra 400 ppm CO₂e due to a burst of seafloor methane from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean of some 5 Gt would push up temperatures, especially in the Arctic, where there is very little hydroxyl in the air to break down the methane.

The albedo-flip of melting sea ice and ice sheets and the increase of the water surface area and thereby sequestration of CO2. Hudson (2011) estimates a rise in radiative forcing due to removal of Arctic summer sea ice as 0.7 Watt/m2, a value close to the total of methane release since 1750.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/beyond-climate-tipping-points-greenhouse-gas-levels-exceed-stability-limit-greenland-antarctic-ice-sheets/5681653

A methane forcing value of 25 XCO2 is a conservative long-term value. Shorter term forcing values are significantly higher

So Glikson's 2019 paper that Eliot dismisses - it cites the same radiative forcing paper that Sam Carana relies on

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930 

I've linked it three times now - so anyone reading this has no excuse not to read the "radiative forcing" basis for the methane conversion (not moles).

OK so that is the crucial conversion graph that Eliot has ignored - yet Glikson is relying on.  This clearly explains why Glikson is converting 1800 ppb methane to 400 ppm CO2 - approximately.

It is "figure 2" in the paper I've cited three times  - now four.

It's open access - 

Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing

M. EtminanG. MyhreE. J. HighwoodK. P. Shine

 

No comments:

Post a Comment