Now the proof: permafrost ‘bubbles’ are leaking methane 200 times above the norm
Posted: 02 August 2017 04:08 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  225
Joined  2017-07-06

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-the-proof-permafrost-bubbles-are-leaking-methane-200-times-above-the-norm/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2017 04:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  225
Joined  2017-07-06
Adamski - 02 August 2017 04:08 AM

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-the-proof-permafrost-bubbles-are-leaking-methane-200-times-above-the-norm/

we are fucked

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2017 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24
Adamski - 02 August 2017 04:44 AM
Adamski - 02 August 2017 04:08 AM

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-the-proof-permafrost-bubbles-are-leaking-methane-200-times-above-the-norm/

we are fucked

funny that, before opening I was thinking ‘kissing our asses goodbye.”

Actually not one bit funny at all, is it downer

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2017 07:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24

This has been known for a while, as have the potential problems of methane clathrate….http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
A positive temperature feedback potentially even worse than carbon dioxide but triggered by the effects of carbon dioxide. The graphs I put in another thread suggest a closer correlation between atmospheric methane and temperature than between carbon dioxide and temperature. An ANOVA would verify that but have the climatologists done that?
The temperature didn’t run away in previous cycles, suggesting there is a chance things will cool down again but this time recovery will be complicated by higher carbon dioxide levels so there is no guarantee if we don’t reduce carbon dioxide. The other unknown is just how high temperatures can go. Paleoclimate data doesn’t have the resolution to define peak temperatures within a century so we really have no idea how nasty things can get as the consequences of high carbon dioxide trigger other events that increase temperature. Should we ignore these potential issues and argue that worrying about such things is irrelevant because carbon dioxide is all we need to know or should we recognize that our knowledge may be incomplete and keep searching for other potentially relevant issues? The responses in these forums suggest we should focus on carbon dioxide alone and ignore the possibility of other contributors. That seems almost religious in its blind devotion to one point of view and the determined campaign to root out the “heretics”, often wrongly identified as “climate change deniers” when in reality those perceived heretics are simply pointing out that the worshippers of the carbon dioxide story may be missing a few more essential chapters.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2017 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24
JohnH - 02 August 2017 07:27 AM

This has been known for a while, as have the potential problems of methane clathrate….http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
A positive temperature feedback potentially even worse than carbon dioxide but triggered by the effects of carbon dioxide. The graphs I put in another thread suggest a closer correlation between atmospheric methane and temperature than between carbon dioxide and temperature. An ANOVA

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models used to analyze the differences among group means and their associated procedures (such as “variation” among and between groups), developed by statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher. - Hmmm, who whispered that one in your ear?  Can you explain why this should be done.  Have you ever taken the time to see if climate scientists have done anything similar?

would verify that but have the climatologists done that?
The temperature didn’t run away in previous cycles, suggesting there is a chance things will cool down again but this time recovery will be complicated by higher carbon dioxide levels so there is no guarantee if we don’t reduce carbon dioxide. The other unknown is just how high temperatures can go. Paleoclimate data doesn’t have the resolution to define peak temperatures within a century so we really have no idea how nasty things can get as the consequences of high carbon dioxide trigger other events that increase temperature. Should we ignore these potential issues and argue that worrying about such things is irrelevant because carbon dioxide is all we need to know or should we recognize that our knowledge may be incomplete and keep searching for other potentially relevant issues? The responses in these forums suggest we should focus on carbon dioxide alone and ignore the possibility of other contributors. That seems almost religious in its blind devotion to one point of view and the determined campaign to root out the “heretics”, often wrongly identified as “climate change deniers” when in reality those perceived heretics are simply pointing out that the worshippers of the carbon dioxide story may be missing a few more essential chapters.

Don’t be an ass.

That up there is a jumble, infused with whining, compounded by your best effort not to hear what I’m trying to explain.  You are the one sidetracking with politicized bullshit such as: religious, blind devotion, determined campaign, root out the “heretics”, perceived heretics, worshippers, CO2 “story”.

Why not list your questions, claims, challenges in a rational constructive manner?  Something that can be responded to in a serious manner.  Something that offers an opportunity for constructive learning, for all parties involved, after all the education never ends.

You say you don’t want to play romper room, then don’t start.  Heck, why don’t you show a little good-faith by sharing links and sources to your graph(s) - {Incidentally, that’s another constant contrarian ruse - producing graphs without sources, unfortunately there’s a lot of doctors graphs being passed around within the climate science contrarian community.}

JohnH - 02 August 2017 07:27 AM

simply pointing out that the worshippers of the carbon dioxide story may be missing a few more essential chapters.

You just don’t get it.
Think you can get to home plate by ignoring first base? 
I know, I know, in the Breitbart, Murdoch, Koch world of feeding parrots their talking points, it has worked quite well.  Look at the oblivious idiots we’ve handed our government over to.  Still doesn’t make it honest or ethical or real in a down to Earth’s geophysics sort of way.

worshippers of the carbon dioxide story

That’s like being told not to “worship” evolution,
or not to “worship” gravity,
or not to worship” the impacts of accumulating compounding interest.

Stop worshiping atmospheric physics???  It does not compute!!!
These are fundamental building blocks of a reality we are trying to understand.
The GOP/Koch/Murdoch wing keep telling us reality can be molded into what they/you it want it to be.

Trying to use

Methane hydrates and global warming

Considering that methane hydrates only form under very specific conditions, it is conceivable that global warming, which as a matter of fact includes warming of the oceans, could affect the stability of gas hydrates. There are indications in the history of the Earth suggesting that climatic changes in the past could have led to the destabilization of methane hydrates and thus to the release of methane. These indications – including measurements of the methane content in ice cores, for instance – are still controversial. Yet be this as it may, the issue is highly topical and is of particular interest to ­scientists concerned with predicting the possible impacts of a temperature increase on the present deposits of methane hydrate. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, around 20 times more effective per molecule than carbon dioxide. An increased release from the ocean into the atmosphere could further intensify the greenhouse effect. Investigations of methane hydrates stability in dependance of temperature fluctuations, as well as of methane behaviour after it is released, are therefore urgently needed.


as a smoke screen to diminished the fundamental reality that all this goes back to society’s profligate fossil fuels burning and biosphere destruction, is fraud.

And fraud is what your words having been perpetrating against the readers with your odd climate science tidbits and grumblings.

For those into better understanding the ways of the climate science crazy-maker and their tactics here’s an interesting read:

COOKING THE BOOKS: How to write a contrarian polemic on climate change.
https://climatedenial.org/2008/09/16/cooking-the-books-how-to-write-a-contrarian-polemic-on-climate-change/
George Marshall - September 16, 2008

He describes the basic rhetorical game plan that occasionally get’s employed around here with such finesse.

[ Edited: 02 August 2017 09:10 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2017 09:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 August 2017 06:18 AM
Adamski - 02 August 2017 04:44 AM
Adamski - 02 August 2017 04:08 AM

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-the-proof-permafrost-bubbles-are-leaking-methane-200-times-above-the-norm/

we are fucked

funny that, before opening I was thinking ‘kissing our asses goodbye.”

Actually not one bit funny at all, is it downer

I would not quite give up yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVfgkFaswn4

Damn, if only he had been this passionate running against W

[ Edited: 02 August 2017 09:46 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 06:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24

onward
In the good news department

Explainer: California’s new ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme to cut emissions
US POLICY- July 28, 2017
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-californias-new-cap-and-trade-scheme-to-cut-emissions

Last month, California’s politicians agreed a new cap-and-trade bill to help curb the state’s emissions. This week, governor Jerry Brown signed it into law, representing a major step forward in the state’s effort to combat climate change.

“Cap and trade” requires large emitters such as power plants, refineries and factories to buy permits for the greenhouse gases they release. Distributors of natural gas, gasoline, liquid petroleum gas, and diesel fuels must cover emissions from fuels they sell. The scheme limits the total number of permits available so that overall emissions stay within the cap.

California, one the US’s largest emitting states, has committed to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 08:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently about 50% higher than past peaks whereas atmospheric methane is 250% higher than past peaks. Carbon dioxide still seems to be considered the major culprit in climate change.
http://esseacourses.strategies.org/module.php?module_id=86

The Nature article, however, discusses how the Siberian thaw lakes may be emitting into the atmosphere as much as five times the amount of methane than previously thought. Estimates are that about 10,000 gigatons of carbon are contained in methane hydrates worldwide. This compares to the 700 gigatons of carbon now present in Earth’s atmosphere. Geologic evidence indicates the rate of release into the atmosphere of this methane increases during periods of warming. So not only does methane contribute to greenhouse warming, but warming itself can result in the release of additional methane.

July 2017 https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=242668

They also note that because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, “understanding its global sources, sinks and feedbacks within the climate system is of considerable importance” to the scientific understanding of the larger global climate picture.

The team published its results today in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Yikes! These guys are saying right now we need to understand more about the climate system. Does that make them deniers too?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 10:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24
JohnH - 03 August 2017 08:18 PM

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently about 50% higher than past peaks whereas atmospheric methane is 250% higher than past peaks. Carbon dioxide still seems to be considered the major culprit in climate change.
http://esseacourses.strategies.org/module.php?module_id=86

The Nature article, however, discusses how the Siberian thaw lakes may be emitting into the atmosphere as much as five times the amount of methane than previously thought. Estimates are that about 10,000 gigatons of carbon are contained in methane hydrates worldwide. This compares to the 700 gigatons of carbon now present in Earth’s atmosphere. Geologic evidence indicates the rate of release into the atmosphere of this methane increases during periods of warming. So not only does methane contribute to greenhouse warming, but warming itself can result in the release of additional methane.
July 2017 https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=242668

They also note that because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, “understanding its global sources, sinks and feedbacks within the climate system is of considerable importance” to the scientific understanding of the larger global climate picture.
Yikes! These guys are saying right now we need to understand more about the climate system. Does that make them deniers too?

Why more juvenile bullshit?
and you wonder why you receive such a chilly response around here.

Please realize we now have a newly developing climate monster, CH4, muscling it’s way into our world and people’s awareness. 
Why in god’s name would that diminish all that is damned well understood about our climate and how it’s operating?

Your words project this attitude that because learning continues, what’s well understand can be ignored.  It’s utterly contemptibly.
Especially now that our entire planet is in rapid transition, you bet new factors will be tossed at scientists with increasing tempo.
But, that doesn’t, and won’t, negate any of the fundamental physics we’ve learned about, nor does it negate the precision with which GHG physics is understood.


The deniers are the one’s that play games with words in order to draw attention away from the fundamental issues we must face and learn about before anything meaningful can change.

Profile