4 ms·

Are you qualified to evaluated what makes a change large or small? Is it possible that a 5-10% change is actually "massive"?

jlmorton 7y ago
Perhaps not, I am not a climate scientist. I guess that precludes me from looking at a dataset and forming an independent conclusion. But since I'm not qualified to comment on the data, is Michael Mann qualified enough? https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1172947818069352451 https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1172947818069352451
- ascii_only 7y ago
  He doesn't argue with increase and only argues what is source of this spike.
  - jlmorton 7y ago
    Not true. He says: > The 2019 measurements are consistent with the trend over the past decade. Outliers (i.e. isolated data points that lie well above the average) are seen throughout the record. Do not over-interpret them. He goes on to say there's no evidence this is from methane hydrates, or permafrost: > That is not to say that we shouldn't worry about the potential for increased methane release from melting permafrost. But there is no evidence to support breathless claims that we have e.g. crossed some "tipping point" with regard to such processes.
    - ascii_only 7y ago
      >The increased trend over the past decade is also part of a larger trend.
      - jlmorton 7y ago
        Right, I don't disagree with the plain fact that methane concentrations are increasing, both globally, and apparently in Barrow. There is a decades-long trend of increased methane concentrations. The question is whether there has been a massive eruption of methane that is unprecedented, and could only come from methane hydrates. Michael Mann says the "eruption" is consistent with past outliers and we shouldn't over-interpret the data. He says there is no evidence the increase is from permafrost, and that it appears likely to be from anthropogenic (i.e., non-tipping point) sources. I'm not making an argument against climate change science. I'm making an argument against Dr. Peter Carter exaggerating climate science.
        matmatmatmat 7y ago
        That sounds reasonable. Thanks for the sourcing!

jlmorton 7y ago

Perhaps not, I am not a climate scientist. I guess that precludes me from looking at a dataset and forming an independent conclusion. But since I'm not qualified to comment on the data, is Michael Mann qualified enough? https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1172947818069352451 https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1172947818069352451

ascii_only 7y ago
He doesn't argue with increase and only argues what is source of this spike.
- jlmorton 7y ago
  Not true. He says: > The 2019 measurements are consistent with the trend over the past decade. Outliers (i.e. isolated data points that lie well above the average) are seen throughout the record. Do not over-interpret them. He goes on to say there's no evidence this is from methane hydrates, or permafrost: > That is not to say that we shouldn't worry about the potential for increased methane release from melting permafrost. But there is no evidence to support breathless claims that we have e.g. crossed some "tipping point" with regard to such processes.
  - ascii_only 7y ago
    >The increased trend over the past decade is also part of a larger trend.
    - jlmorton 7y ago
      Right, I don't disagree with the plain fact that methane concentrations are increasing, both globally, and apparently in Barrow. There is a decades-long trend of increased methane concentrations. The question is whether there has been a massive eruption of methane that is unprecedented, and could only come from methane hydrates. Michael Mann says the "eruption" is consistent with past outliers and we shouldn't over-interpret the data. He says there is no evidence the increase is from permafrost, and that it appears likely to be from anthropogenic (i.e., non-tipping point) sources. I'm not making an argument against climate change science. I'm making an argument against Dr. Peter Carter exaggerating climate science.
      - matmatmatmat 7y ago
        That sounds reasonable. Thanks for the sourcing!