The IPCC scientists and global warming alarmists predicted that increasing CO2 emissions would lead to a catastrophic permafrost tipping point, unleashing gigatons of methane gas – they were wrong…….

>>>>>>>

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/02/the-global-warming-permafrost-tipping-point.html

http://www.farmcarbon.co.nz/index.php/2009/02/the-methane-cycle/

In particular, the rather long comment from Michael Russel (comment number 1) has some interesting observations on the methane cycle.

I just checked the model. Radiative Efficiency and GWP have a simple linear relationship.
If RE is 5 times over stated so is GWP. This might be the simplest line of attack.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/08/scientists-confirm-that-settled-science-prediction-about-a-greenhouse-gas-proves-to-be-robustly-wron.html

“Recent data from NSF-funded research in both Greenland and Antarctica demonstrate that fossil-fuel related emissions of both methane and ethane, two of the most abundant hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, declined at the end of the twentieth century…causes of the decline in methane emission rates to the atmosphere have been puzzling scientists for some time. This new study shows that a change in human activities may have played a key role in the recent leveling off of methane, which, being a potent greenhouse gas contributes to global temperatures…”

And send money for more research.

BTW, the NZCSC NZT7 review gets space at C3 Headlines and Tom Nelson

Global Warming Doesn’t Do New Zealand – No Material Warming Over Last 100 Years

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/08/global-warming-doesnt-do-new-zealand-no-material-warming-over-last-100-years.html

At present rates the atmospheric methane concentration would need 360 years to double. Methane levels are not rising rapidly and present no conceivable threat of any kind.

The amount of methane in the atmosphere is increasing by a mere 14 million tonnes (0.014 gigatonnes) per annum . Only a small fraction of this will be due to farm animals and one is led to the conclusion that research into methane emissions from this latter source is wasteful of resources since the amount is insignificant when compared with the total mass of the atmosphere which is approximately 4.5 million gigatonnes.

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2011/08/owen-mcshane-what-is-it-with-bovine.html

Written by Joel Kauffman, guest post | August 15 2011

Editor’s note: Please feel free to link to, or copy and paste. Joel Kauffman gives his permission for any type of cross-posting with proper attribution.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/temperate-facts/co2-and-gw-primers/methane-mythology

The greenhouse gas theory says that emission of infrared radiation from the Earth is absorbed by certain gases in the atmosphere, which heats them up. For this to happen, the wavelengths emitted by the Earth, a broad swath peaking at 20 microns, can only be absorbed by a gas with a broad swath peaking at 20 µ microns (from 3-30 µ).Here the champion absorber is water vapor. A minor absorption peak of carbon dioxide at 13 µ absorbs, but its major peak at 4 µ does not. The major peak of methane (Link 12) at 3 µ (3000 cm-1) is too far away from Earth’s emission to matter, but its smaller absorption at 8 µ (1300 cm –1) might absorb a little.

How much might this matter? In Figure 7 of the review:“Climate Change Reexamined” (Link 13) you can see an infrared spectrum of humid air.

Look near 3 µ or 3000 cm-1 for the major infrared peak of methane. Do you see any of it?

There is none.

This means that at its level of only 1.8 ppm in air, methane is not a significant absorber.

This means it cannot be an active “greenhouse gas”.

This is good science.

I just spent some time on the spreadsheet. Once I had unbundled it a bit I have found it quite useful. The sensitivity to lifetime assumptions becomes clear. I have ignored the narrow band forcing calc because we don’t have the equivalent for either CO2 or CH4, however substituting RF’s for their forcing numbers (it is only the ratio after all that flows through) you get a working model that seems consistent.

It has focused me to find out what lifetime means to IPCC. Half life, lifetime and effective life are all used pretty randomly in the literature. The model gives the relationship between lifetime and effective life. But I am not sure whether lifetime always means half life