Contact Paul

This is a contact page with some basic contact information and a contact form.

7 Responses to Contact Paul

  1. John Robert Turcot says:
    April 4, 2017 at 3:57 pm

    Sorry for the typos above…. I should always review before sending, but in essence the gist of the question is still the same.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Brandon Jacobs says:
    July 21, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    Paul,

    I wanted to correct my figures, Methanogenesis is not 40x greater, it’s approximately 61x greater when you cross the 10C threshold for greater than ~50 days.

    The Arctic north of 60 Latitude is ONLY NOW crossing that threshold.

    Much of the arctic remains below 10C and you need ~50 days of continuous above 10C temperatures at which point the Methanogenesis spikes by 61x.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Brandon Jacobs says:
    July 21, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Corrected comment: Paul, I wrote you on youtube, I’m a big fan. I will try to be brief but I think most people (and most of your videos) are looking at the wrong problem. I agree with you that abrupt climate change will occur, but I think it is caused by events set in motion 10-20 years ago. It is not something happening because of the forcing now, or happening because of a pending major catastrophe such as methane hydrates.

    In brief, the problem is methanogenesis and not methane hydrates.

    I would love to see more of your videos but shifting emphasis from the methane hydrates to a conversation of methanogenesis and to see what your very scientific and logical mind is able to find following those bread-crumbs.

    I will not include links to the sources in this email because I don’t want my first conversation to be screened by a spam filter.

    But, methanogenesis rapidly approaches optimum after 10C and after 30 days of bacterial growth.

    What this means is that as more of the arctic wetlands are exposed to days above 10C the increase of methane production from the Arctic will skyrocket, the difference between 5C and 10C over a 30 day time frame is around 10x. Over a 50 day time frame the difference is about 61x (Corrected as mentioned in 2nd comment).

    So the conversation should include “days above 10C” North of 60th latitude.

    Basically if a region is above 10C for more than 60 days it might as well be tropical (optimum methane production is between 32-40C).

    So while the Arctic is very cold it’s on a threshold, between being Arctic, and being Jungle in terms of Methanogenesis.

    We are watching that threshold be crossed now, we are seeing creation of craters in the arctic as you’ve mentioned because the number of days above 10C has increased from 0 days, to some variable average depending on what latitude you are at.

    I think we should be determining how many days above 10C we are getting on average across Siberia, and the North Canadian shield.

    Once the 10C barrier is crossed, the only variable left to consider is how much acreage in wetlands is increased.

    For instance, we can expect a 61x (Corrected as mentioned in 2nd comment) increase in Methane production from wetlands that already exists in the arctic wherever 60days of 10C+ occurs.

    But then will the acreage of active wetlands increase by 2x, 3x? etc.

    I think Methanogenesis is much more significant than the potential of a 3000Mt+ release of Methane hydrates.

    If we push CH4 to 2,700ppb then we will increase to +1watt of radiative forcing.

    So determining the concentration of CH4 as a result of wetlands is important.

    Currently wetlands are estimated to be about 25% of all CH4 released on the planet, so if you double the acreage of all wetlands by adding the Arctic to the system, then we can estimate that we will add about .125 watts just from that increase alone. (additional 25% of the .5 watt forcing from the current increase in CH4 from pre-indstrial levels).

    That .125 watts then can be factored by the estimated Methanogenesis increase due to Arctic. If arctic triples the wetland area, then it’d be around .25 watts, if it quadruples then it’d be around .375 watts. And so on.

    Thanks for your time reading this.

    I hope to see more of your research regarding the methanogenesis component.

    Regards,
    Brandon Jacobs

    Like

    Reply
  4. JEFF GREENE says:
    July 24, 2017 at 11:06 pm

    You need Patreon!

    Like

    Reply
  5. nickreality65 says:
    August 2, 2018 at 3:09 pm

    “Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserved to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.”

    Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pg 91

    The Radiative Greenhouse Effect Theory

    Premise 1:
    The earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. (288 K – 255 K = 33 C)
    So, just how does that work?

    Premise 2:
    There is an up/down/”back” CO2/GHG LWIR energy loop between the surface and the atmosphere that “traps” and recirculates energy through molecular level QED processes warming both the atmosphere and the surface.
    And what powers that energy loop?

    Premise 3:
    The surface radiates as a 288 K ideal black body with an emission of 390 W/m^2. (K-T 289 K & 396 W/m^2)

    Premises 1, 2 & 3 are demonstrably false.

    No 33 C warmer + No up/down/”back” GHG LWIR energy loop + No ideal BB surface radiation = Mankind’s carbon dioxide plays ZERO role in the behavior of the climate.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE

    Premise 1:
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

    Premise 2:
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    Premise 3:
    http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW

    Like

    Reply
  6. Art Long says:
    October 1, 2019 at 5:35 pm

    Subject: Hadley Cells

    Several years ago, I read a book called “Climate Wars: 2008”, by a Gwynne Dyer (geopolitical analyst) served in the Canadian, American & British Navies…

    You may have covered Hadley Cells (haven’t seen it as yet)…as it my understanding that Hadley Cells have a great effect in the creation of the Earth’s Deserts; and, that they are moving slowly North.

    If you could do an episode on Hadley Cells, it could be helpful in providing a fuller understanding of Climate processes.

    Thanks–enjoy your discussions a great deal–very helpful information.

    Regards, Art Long

    Like

    Reply
  7. nickreality65 says:
    January 17, 2021 at 9:16 am

    The Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory three-legged stool toppled – together with all the pseudo-scientific, confirmation bias, correlation = cause, climate change, Gorebal warming rubbish stacked on top.

    Leg 1: By reflecting away 30% +/- of the incoming solar radiation the albedo, which could not/would not exist without the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler not warmer much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield. Remove the atmosphere and the albedo goes with it, i.e. no water vapor or clouds, no snow or ice, no vegetation, no oceans, the earth becomes a barren, airless, celestial rock. And much like the moon, an albedo of 10% with 20% more incoming kJ/h, hot^3 lit side, cold^3 dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly admit this scenario refuting the RGHE claim that the naked earth would become a -430 F frozen ball of ice.

    Leg 2: The upwelling “trapped” and the downwelling “back” radiated energy of the GHG loop must first be removed from the terrestrial system. Removing this “extra” energy would short-change & disrupt the balance at ToA so it must be balanced by some kind of “extra” upwelling energy. LoT absolutely, positively, emphatically PROHIBITS “trapped” and/or “extra” energy.

    Leg 3: The “extra” upwelling LWIR comes from an assumption that the earth’s surface radiates as an ideal black body which, by THEORETICAL definition, with unitary emissivity absorbs ALL and emits ALL. However, because of the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the contiguous atmospheric molecules, radiation becomes accountable only for (ALL – non radiative) which renders “extra” upwelling LWIR impossible. Emissivity is not 1.0 or .95 but (ALL – non-radiative)/ALL. In the case of the ubiquitous K-T power flux balance graphic: theoretical ε=63/396=0.16 or per the actual balance ε=63/160=0.39. There is no “extra” upwelling LWIR, no “extra” energy for the GHGs to “trap” and “back” radiate and no downwelling LWIR.

    The alleged up/down welling measurements are the result of incorrectly applied instruments and confirmation bias. Remember cold fusion where the “extra” energy was stray currents in the apparatus.

    As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
    https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K

    Leg 1 + Leg 2 + Leg 3 = 0 RGHE + 0 GHG warming + 0 CAGW

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment